Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/eccedeusstudiesoOOsmitrich 


ECCE  DEUS 

STUDIES  OF  PRIMITIVE 
CHRISTIANITY 


ECCE    DEUS 


STUDIES  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 


BY 


WILLIAM  BENJAMIN  SMITH 

n 


O      YE     whoe'er     have      UNDERSTANDINGS     SOBER 

Ponder  the  doctrine  deep  that  lieth   hidden 
Under  the  veil  of  verses  enigmatic. — dante 


[  issued  for  the  rationalist  press  association,  limited  ] 


THE  OPEN  COURT  PUBLISHING  COMPANY, 
623-633  S.  WABASH  AVE.,  CHICAGO 


r' 


<j 


•    •'     •"      » 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface  -__._..-  ix 


PART  I. 
THE  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

Orientation  --------  i 

The  Dilemma-           --__-.-  4 

Argument  from  Personality         -----  9 

Method  of  the  Fourth  Gospel   -----  25 

The  Primitive  Misunderstanding-           -           -           -           -  31 

"Esoterism"  in  the  Gospel          -----  34 

Content  of  the  Gospel     ------  45 

The  Secret  of  Primitive  Christianity    -           -           -           -  60 

The  Active  Principle  of  Christianity    -           -           -           -  67 

PART  II. 
TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Preliminary  --------77 

Witness  of  Acts      -------84 

Witness  of  Revelation  and  Hebrews    -           -           -           -  89 

Witness  of  the  Gospels    ------  95 

Jew  and  Gentile     -------  ioi 

Symbolic  Interpretation  Necessary        -           -           -           -  108 

28i4l0 


vi  CONTENTS 

Examples  of  Symbolism     -_-__. 

The  Didactic  Element       --->_. 

The  Pauline  Quadrilateral         _  _  -  _  _ 

Addenda  :     I.  Jesus  the  Lord      -  -  -  -.  - 

II.  Diffused  Light  of  Symbolism    -  -  - 

III.  The  So-called  Pauline  Testimony 

IV.  The  Ektroma         _           _           _  _  - 
V.  The  Gospel  Portrait       _            -  -  . 

PART  III. 
THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

The  Bulwarks  of  Historicism     -  -  _  -  -  177 

EmINUS  ---_--.-  182 

COMINUS  --_-_-_.  189 

Conclusion    --------  205 

Addenda  :I.-           -           -           -           -           -           -            -  208 

II.  Casting  out  Demons           -           -           _           -  210 

III. 226 

PART  IV. 
THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

The  Silence  of  Josephus  ------  230 

The  Silence  of  Tacitus     ------  238 

Other  Pagans  :  Final  Remarks  -  -  -  -  -  251 

Addenda  :I.  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  257 

II. 260 


CONTENTS  vli 

PAGE 

PART  V. 
THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

Statistics      _..-----  267 

Nature  of  the  Kingdom    ------  270 

Preaching  of  the  Kingdom           -----  275 

Repentance  in  the  Old  Testament         -           -           -           .  277 

Repentance  in  the  New  Testament        -            -           -           -  281 

Conclusion    --------  2S8 

PART  VL 
"A  CITY  CALLED  NAZARET" 

Preliminary  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -291 

New  Testament  Use  of  "  Called  "         -           -           -           -  292 

Conclusion    --------  299 

PART  VII. 

(I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

Form  and  Meaning  of  the  Word           _           -           -           -  303 

Judas  =  Jud^.us       -------  309 

Addenda:    I.-            -           -           -           -           -           -           -  3^7 

II. 321 


Postscript     --------         3^7 

Index  of  Passages  -------         345 

Index  of  Names       -------         35° 


CORRIGENDA 


p.  I,  line  3,7^r  "deuvicinia"  r^ac?"de  vicinia  " 

P.  4,  line  7,  for  '*  interdependent  "  read  "  independent " 

P.  17,  line  22yfor"Jusus"  read '^^ Jesus" 

P.  26,  line  i6,/or  "  tuberculosic"  t-^ac?"  tuberculotic  " 

P.  49,  last  \me,  for  ^^ gnechische^^  read  " griechische'^ 

P.  60,  line  IS,  for  "  cult  of"  read ''cult,  of" 

P.  62,^  line  18,  for  "learning,  and  "  read  "  learning  and  " 

P.  64,  line  3  from  below, /or  •*  Soloman  "  read  "  Solomon  " 

P.  81,  line  20,  j'??r  "  nascitur^^  read  "  nascetur  " 

P.  86,  line  i8,/^r  "  wind  "  read  "wing  " 

P.  94,  line  28,  ^r  "  uaprlpofMai  "  reac?  "  fiaprdpo/xat, " 

P.   ,,  line  36,  for  "  Vanens  "  read  "  Vannens  " 

P.  103,  line  25,  for  "  reasons  "  read  "  reason  " 

P.  105,  footnote,  T^r  "ania,"  "ani"  read  'ania',  'ani' 

P.  107,  last  line,  for  "  2  x  2=4  "  read  "  2  x  2=411 " 

P.  1 1 1,  line  2,  footnote,  for  "  certain  man  "  read  "  certain  young  man ' 

P.    ,,    line  3,         ,,         omit  "htm" 

P.  117,  line  2g,  for  "  doubly  "  read  "  double  " 

P.  127,  last  line,  for  "  mud  "  read  "  mid  " 

P.  142,  line  15,  for" ^"  read^i'" 

P.  145,  line  2j,for  "  Maschal "  read  "  Mashal " 

P.    „     last  line, /^r"  115  "  r^a^"  116" 

P.  150,  line  12,  for  "capable"  read " capahles" 

P.  159,  line  \,for" ideas  "  read " idea  " 

P.  171,  line  2,  for  "there  the  "  read  "  there  were  the  " 

P.  172,  line  6  from  below,  y»r  "  eschatologie  "  read  "  eschatologic  " 

P.  191,  line  ig,  for  " i^^ara  raiavroiji"  read  " e^iffraraL  ai5roi;s  " 

P.  225,  line  9,  for  "  web  "  read  "  deck  " 

P.  236,  line  20,  for  «  human  "  read  "  divine  " 

P.  237,  line  16,  for  "  Hence  "  read  "  For  " 

P.  242,  line  25,  for  «  ot "  read  "  to  " 

P.  252,  line  4  from  below,  ^r  "  Archd,''  read"Arch^" 

P.  304,  line  12, /or  «  ^,  and  "  read  "  ^  and  " 

P.  319,  line  2  from  below, /or  «  montaine  "  read  "  montane." 


PREFACE 


The  reader  of  these  inquiries  into  the  source  and  sense  of  primitive 
Christianity  will  not  fail  to  remark  that  certain  matters  come  up 
repeatedly  for  discussion.  The  lines  of  thought  pursued  are 
numerous  and  in  general  mutually  quite  independent — wherein 
lies,  in  fact,  in  great  measure  the  logical  worth  of  the  book,  if  any 
such  it  have — and  it  is  not  strange  that  here  and  there  they  should 
touch  or  indeed  intersect  each  other.  Naturally  such  points  of 
coincidence  are  often  highly  important,  and  fully  deserve  the 
emphasis  of  repetition.  Inasmuch  as  the  path  of  approach  has 
much  significance  in  argumentation,  and  as  it  seemed  well  to 
direct  the  reader's  attention  again  and  again  to  such  nodal  and 
cardinal  points,  no  attempt  has  been  made,  in  the  interest  of 
artistic  unity,  to  reduce  these  different  treatments  to  a  single 
presentation.  It  would  be  unwise  to  secure  an  esthetic  gain  by 
a  logical  loss. 

The  author  has  been  at  no  pains  to  produce  the  impression  of 
originality  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  has  made  open  acknowledgment 
when  conscious  of  any  important  indebtedness  to  others.  But  he 
feels  quite  sure  that  the  life  of  the  soul  is  by  no  means  exhausted 
in  consciousness,  and  that  he  may  owe  unwittingly  to  others, 
especially  to  Volkmar,  more  than  might  at  first  appear.  The 
Marcus  of  this  intrepid  truthseeker  came  to  the  author's  hand 
nearly  a  generation  ago,  some  twenty  years  before  he  began  to 
approach  his  present  point  of  view,  when  he  was  sunk  in  Pauline 
and  apocryphal  studies,  while  the  ground  assumptions  of  liberal 
criticism  wxre  still  accepted  by  him  as  entirely  unassailable.  It 
was  not  strange,  then,  that  Volkmar's  discourse  about  Lehr-  and 
Sinnhilder  passed  by  without  making  much  impression,  without 
exciting  secret  doubts  or  questionings.  Nearly  a  quarter-century 
afterwards,  when  the  author's  present  standpoint  had  long  since  been 


X  PREFACE 

fully  attained,  and  in  fact  along  the  paths  laid  out  in  Der  vorchrist- 
liche  Jesus,  as  he  was  busied  with  renewed  study  of  the  Gospels, 
he  was  surprised  to  recognise  suddenly  that  his  new  interpretations 
were  breathing  as  it  were  the  breath  of  Volkmar,  though  he  has 
never  consulted  Marcus  to  ascertain  how  close  in  detail  the 
resemblance  may  be.  While,  then,  what  he  consciously  owes  to 
the  indefatigable  Zuricher  is  very  small,  he  takes  this  opportunity 
to  avow  that  his  unconscious  indebtedness  may  be  much  larger. 

But  a  greater  than  Volkmar,  the  noblest  and  most  illustrious 
of  the  Church  Fathers,  following  not  servilely  in  the  footsteps  of 
spirits  and  thinkers  perhaps  still  greater,  nearly  1,700  years  ago 
affirmed  emphatically  and  repeatedly  the  imperative  necessity  of 
a  thoroughgoing  symbolic  exposition  of  the  Gospels.  Herewith  is 
by  no  means  meant  that  he  rejected  their  recitals  as  unhistoric — 
far  from  it  ! — but  that  a  thoroughgoing  symbolism  cannot  be 
denied,  that  the  sources  do  not  contain  pure  history,  that 
acceptance  of  the  accounts  at  face-value  is  impossible — on  all  of 
this  it  is  that  Origen  insists  so  earnestly  and  convincedly.  Now, 
however,  if  the  symbolic  sense  is  the  main  thing,  as  this  Father 
so  clearly  perceived,  then  the  immediate  and  manifest  corollary 
must  deprive  the  narratives  of  their  seemingly  historical  content. 
To  depict  the  progress  of  the  Jesus-cult,  to  represent  in  narrative 
form  the  revelation  to  men  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  as  a  series 
of  highly  coloured  and  dramatically  grouped  historical  incidents — 
that  would  be  picturesque,  beautiful,  impressive,  yea,  vividly 
instructive  and  wholly  unexceptionable ;  under  certain  (actual) 
conditions  such  a  procedure  was  to  be  recommended  uncon- 
ditionally, as  alone  proper  and  effective.  But  to  suppose  that 
such  events,  thus  full  of  spiritual  significance,  did  prosaically 
happen  would  be  worse  than  puerile  and  ludicrous.  For  reflection 
can  fix  itself  and  dwell  on  the  spiritual  content  only  ixihen  the 
historical  investiture  is  recognised  as  feigned  and  unreal ;  so  long 
as  this  latter  is  accepted  as  real  and  thinkable,  so  long  must  it 
reign  o'er  sense  and  thought,  especially  when  it  is  marvellous,  and 
so  long  must  the  deeper  sense  be  neglected.  As  a  pure  symbolism 
the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  might  enforce  a  profound  and 
beautiful  doctrine  ;  as  a  literal  occurrence  it  could  not  teach  any 
such  truth  at  all,  for  it  would  divert  and  fasten  the  attention  of 


PREFACE 


XI 


all  upon  the  astounding  material  prodigy.  Hence  it  is  clear  that 
Jesus  could  not  have  portrayed  his  teaching  in  such  pictures,  that 
in  every  single  case  the  recognition  of  a  symbolic  aim  entails  the 
surrender  of  the  historical  content.  It  is  very  hard  to  believe  that 
Origen  did  not  himself  admit  this  obvious  consequence,  though  he 
did  not  openly  proclaim  it. 

But  while  calling  attention  to  this  Father's  broad  recognition 
of  symbolism  in  the  Gospels,  we  need  by  no  means  approve  of  his 
allegorical  method  as  applied  to  the  Old  Testament,  nor  adopt  his 
over-refined  interpretations  of  evangelic  narratives.  Indeed,  it 
seems  strange  at  first  that  he  saw  in  general  so  distinctly  and  in 
particular  so  dimly — a  puzzling  chiaroscuro.  But  we  must 
,  remember  that  he  was  sundered  by  at  least  two  centuries  from  the 
origin  of  the  Gospel  stories,  and  by  a  far  wider  chasm  from  the 
spirit  that  shaped  them.  His  was  an  Hellenic  intelligence,  prone 
to  abstractions,  set  to  interpret  the  product  of  a  mind  at  least 
half-Semitic,  that  busied  itself  almost  exclusively  with  the  concrete. 
Somewhat  wanting  in  historic  sense,  he  could  hardly  envisage  the 
conditions  of  a  distant  past,  and  fell  an  easy^victim  to  the  super- 
subtlety  of  his  age  and  his  race. 

But  it  would  be  a  grievous  error  to  attribute  his  perception  of 
the  symbolic  element  itself  to  any  such  lack  of  historic  feeling. 
For  this  element  is  too  patent  and  prominent  to  escape  even  the 
half-opened  eye,  and  is  acknowledged  in  some  measure  even  in 
the  materialising  patristic  and  in  conservative  modern  theology. 
Among  liberals,  Schmiedel  and  Loisy  have  perceived  and  empha- 
sised its  frequent  presence.  In  his  compendious  work,  Les 
Avangiles  Synoptiques^  epitomising  and  supplanting  whole  libraries, 
the  latter  displays  an  unmistakable  partiality  for  the  adjective 
"  symbolique";  and  in  countless  places  we  read,  "  le  miracle 
figure "  or  "  presage,"  not  only  in  Luke  (the  great  allegorist, 
according  to  Loisy),  but  even  in  the  (reputedly)  clumsy,  awkward, 
and  simple-minded  Mark. 

That  from  the  earliest  times  and  in  the  most  uncorrupt  Gospel 
narratives,  not  merely  in  the  miraculous  but  also  in  other  portions, 
there  has  always  been  an  extensive  and  important  symbolic  element 
cannot,  indeed,  be  doubted.  So  much  at  least  seems  certain.  Hence 
arises  the  unavoidable  question :  Where  shall  we  draw  the  boundary- 


xii  PREFACE 

line  ?  How  and  according  to  what  principles  shall  we  delimit  the 
symbolic  from  the  non-symbolic  and  authentic  ?  To  answer  this 
query  seems  to  be  the  inevitable  obligation  of  the  liberal  critic. 
Schmiedel  has,  indeed,  met  it  openly  and  bravely — with  what 
success  the  reader  may  judge  after  reading  this  volume.  But,  in 
general,  the  critics  appear  to  have  edged  cautiously  round — at 
least,  not  to  have  given  any  clear,  unambiguous  answer.  Loisy 
assures  us  repeatedly  that  this  or  that  is  undoubtedly  authentic, 
Harnack  also  likewise,  and  Wellhausen  less  often.  But  one  seeks 
in  vain  for  the  grounds  of  their  confident  pronouncements.  Never 
does  their  judgment  appear  determined  by  objective  facts,  but 
uniformly  by  subjective  caprice.  The  critic  seems  to  have  thought 
out  or  formed  some  "Jesus-shape"  for  himself — how,  no  man  can 
say — but  in  every  case  under  the  guidance  of  his  own  temperament 
and  predisposition.  His  "Jesus-shape"  is  merely  what  it  seems 
to  him  under  all  the  circumstances  a  Jesus  should  have  been. 
With  this  "Jesus-shape"  every  single  feature  of  the  Gospel-Jesus 
is  then  carefully  compared  :  if  it  seems  consistent  with  the 
imagined  "  shape,"  it  is  accepted  as  probable  ;  if  it  seems 
essential,  it  is  declared  certain ;  if  inconsistent,  it  is  rejected 
as  improbable,  or  even  impossible. 

But  when  we  ask  for  the  justification  of  the  Shape  itself,  then, 
alas  !  none  is  given,  none  has  been,  none  will  be,  even  unto  years 
of  many  generations.  Without  further  ado  the  critic  announces 
Jesus  was  this,  and  not  that  !  But  the  same  can  never  be  proved, 
can  never  be  made  probable.  The  domain  of  possible  individuality 
cannot  be  defined  so  narrowly,  nor  so  sharply.  No  one  can  say 
whether  a  mystical  dreamer  or  a  strenuous  reformer,  whether  a 
far-seeing  theorist  or  a  stout-hearted  man  of  action,  was  the  more 
probable.  The  most  various  traits  of  character  may  be  ascribed 
with  equal  right  to  Jesus,  compatible  and  incompatible — yea,  even 
though  directly  contradictory  ;  nor  can  we  ever  prove  that  some 
were  antecedently  probable,  others  improbable,  or  in  truth 
impossible.  Even  if  any  one  particular  type  should  seem  to 
be  more  likely  than  any  one  other,  it  would  still  be  unlikely  in 
comparison  with  all  others  possible.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  problem  in 
the  theory  of  combinations  :  In  how  many  ways  can  you  select  71 
things  out  of  r  things  ?     The  number  of  possible  solutions  is  so 


PREFACE  xiii 

great  that  the  probability  of  any  one^  even  the  most  probable,  is 
only  vanishingly  small ;  that  is,  we  must  give  up  the  problem  as 
practically  insoluble,  unless  the  solution  be  sought  along  a  path 
widely  divergent  from  that  hitherto  trod.  To  show  such  a  path, 
and  to  follow  it  some  distance,  is  precisely  the  goal  and  aim  of  this 
volume. 

However,  it  is  only  the  general  idea,  the  method  of  exegesis, 
upon  which  the  writer  would  lay  stress.  It  may  well  be  that  in 
many  particulars  he  has  gone  astray,  while  none  the  less  some  such 
exposition  is  imperatively  required.  This  latter  fact  shines  even 
through  the  valiant  strivings  of  Schmiedel  and  Loisy  to  prove  at 
least  some,  however  quite  insignificant,  traits  of  the  evangelic 
paintings  to  be  purely  historic.  The  important  question  is  not 
where  and  in  how  many  details  the  present  writer  has  erred,  but 
where  and  in  what  measure  he  is  right,  and  what  are  the  legitimate 
deductions  therefrom.  Almost  every  one  of  his  contentions  draws 
with  it  a  long  train  of  results,  so  that  unless  they  be  all  repelled 
the  consequences  may  be  very  serious. 

Furthermore,  how  is  it  possible  to  blink  this  other  notable  fact, 
that  the  historical  picture  which  Harnack,  Wellhausen,  Loisy, 
Burkitt,  would  retain  or  restore  is  extremely  dim  and  colourless. 
With  such  vague  and  dull  outlines  they  fail  utterly  to  arouse  our 
admiration,  to  charm  our  fancy,  to  win  our  love,  much  more  to 
explain  the  great  religious  movement  in  whose  focus  it  is  placed 
solely  for  the  sake  of  the  long-desiderated  explanation — nay,  rather 
it  is  a  Personality  scarcely  in  any  respect  attractive  or  impressive, 
but  almost  repellent,  that  these  critics  in  their  need  have  conjured 
up  as  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  Harnack  cannot  point  to  a 
single  incident  in  the  life  of  Jesus  that  marks  him  as  an  especially 
eminent  or  lovable  man.  See  chapter  iv  of  his  Mission  and 
Expansion  of  Christianity.  After  a  brilliant  prologue  he  comes  to 
"Jesus  Christ  and  the  World-Mission."  But  what  has  he  to  say 
of  the  share  of  Jesus  in  this  world-mission  ?  In  fact,  nothing  at 
all.  We  read  some  high-sounding  sentences  about  the  preaching 
of  Jesus,  how  he  directed  his  Gospel  exclusively  to  the  Jews — 
which  Harnack  is  at  great  pains  to  prove.  But  all  remains  hope- 
lessly dark  and  nebulous.  Harnack  mentions  no  new  or  weighty 
definite   conception   that  Jesus   introduced,  no   new  principle   of 


xiv  PREFACE 

conduct  that  he  proposed  or  proved,  no  new  motive,  no  new 
inspiration  that  he  breathed  into  human  life — for  it  had  all  been 
there  already ;  nay,  more,  what  is  still  more  significant,  no 
expressions  of  human  affection,  no  words  of  cheer,  of  comfort,  of 
encouragement  in  the  battle  of  life,  not  one  single  deed  of  human 
kindness,  tenderness,  magnanimity,  or  self-sacrifice.  Even  though 
there  be  something  in  the  words  or  deeds  of  Jesus  that  might  have 
the  appearance  at  first  of  modifying  these  statements,  yet,  on 
closer  scrutiny,  it  will  be  found  to  demand  altogether  another 
interpretation,  to  have  a  bearing  dogmatic  and  not  biographic,  or 
to  be  the  fiction  of  a  later  dramatising  fancy.  As  an  example,  take 
the  genuinely  human  and  supremely  noble  prayer  on  the  cross 
(Luke  xxiii,  34) :  "  Father,  forgive  them  ;  for  they  know  not  what 
they  do."  Here  is  really  a  sentiment  whereof  not  only  Christen- 
dom but  humanity  may  boast,  the  like  of  which  we  find  rarely  even 
in  the  New  Testament,  before  which  even  the  rebel  soul  of 
Rousseau  might  tremble  and  bow.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  "  Western 
interpolation,"  as  admitted  by  Westcott  and  Hort — "we  cannot 
doubt  that  it  comes  from  an  extraneous  source  ";  bracketed  in  i^, 
wanting  in  B^  Z>,  in  the  Sinaitic-Syriac,  and  in  some  old  Latin 
witnesses;  "beyond  all  doubt,"  says  Wellhausen,  "it  is  inter- 
polated." Now,  if  this,  the  very  best  of  all  in  the  New  Testament, 
be  an  insertion,  at  once  the  conclusion  leaps  into  our  sight  :  the 
authors  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  well  able  to  invent  a  Per- 
sonality still  greater  than  that  ascribed  to  Jesus  ;  and  the  only 
reason  why  the  figure  of  Jesus  does  not  tower  up  more  glorious 
still  must  be  one  of  two — either  the  historic  Jesus  was  not  cast  in 
the  noblest  of  moulds,  or  else  the  evangelists  were  not  concerned 
particularly  to  sketch  a  model  human  character,  but  rather  to 
depict  the  progress  of  a  "new  doctrine,"  to  represent  symbolically 
the  triumphant  march  of  the  cult  of  the  Jesus.  Alas  !  Harnack  and 
the  critical  school  do  not  seem  to  hesitate  before  this  alternative, 
but  nerve  themselves  to  accept  a  Jesus  that  does  not  measure  up 
to  the  stature  of  Socrates,  nor  even  of  Aristotle.  For  there  is  no 
human  action  of  the  Harnackian  Jesus  that  seems  to  be  so 
beautiful  or  so  noble  as  that  related  of  the  Stagirite.  (See  p.  127.) 
In  fact,  the  Saviour  of  the  Berlin  professor  never  lifts  himself 
up  to  the  notion  of  man  as  man.     From   beginning   to   end   he 


PREFACE  XV 

remains  a  stiff-necked  Jew,  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews.  He  was 
not  even  a  liberal  Jew  of  that  day.  Essentially  he  was  a  severe 
critic  of  the  Pharisees,  and  only  after  the  apparent  failure  of  his 
message  had  embittered  him  did  he  begin  to  predict  the  impend- 
ing judgment  on  the  children  of  the  Kingdom,  the  rejection  of  his 
people,  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  and  the  admission  of 
strangers  to  the  table  of  the  Father.  Nowadays  we  should  call 
such  a  preacher  an  ill-natured,  disgruntled  dyspeptic.  Harnack 
will  not  hear  of  it,  that  Jesus  cherished  any  idea  of  a  world- 
mission.  This  magnanimous  thought,  he  maintains,  never  arose 
in  the  heart  of  the  genuine  Jewish  prophet,  never  dwelt  in  his 
bosom,  never  formed  any  part  of  the  primitive  tradition.  Still, 
it  was  in  the  world  before  Christ  and  after  Christ,  only  not  in  the 
cramped  horizon  of  the  Saviour  !  Naturally,  then,  Harnack  finds 
it  quite  impossible  to  insert  either  the  influence  or  the  personality 
of  Jesus  in  his  own  historical  picture.  In  fact,  so  far  from 
explaining  the  course  of  events,  the  purely  human,  narrow-hearted 
Jewish  preacher  makes  everything  inexplicable  and  unintelligible. 
He  is  only  a  disturbing  parenthesis,  an  isolated  eddy  in  the  stream 
of  history. 

Splendidly  may  Harnack  sketch  the  preconditions  of  the 
world-preaching  (chapters  i-iii),  masterfully  delineate  its  progress 
through  the  Roman  Empire  ;  but  what  has  the  purely  human  Jesus 
to  do  therewithal  ?  We  still  wait  for  an  answer.  Yea,  indeed, 
Jesus  was  certainly  the  content  of  that  preaching — by  no  means, 
however,  as  a  man,  hut  solely  as  a  God.  Not  only  does  the  human  ■ 
Personality  play  no  rdle  in  this  proclamation,  but  according  to 
Harnack  it  could  merely  hinder  or  annul  the  world-mission,  since 
such  preaching  was  neither  commanded  nor  intended  by  the 
Saviour.  Indeed,  Harnack  bears  witness  of  the  Jew-Christians, 
who  remained  true  to  the  precepts  and  the  example  of  Jesus,  that 
"crushed  by  the  letter  of  Jesus  they  died  a  lingering  death." 

Strong  and  brave  words  are  these,  but  not  too  brave  nor 
strong.  In  Harnack's  view  the  Apostles  were  distinctly  superior 
to  the  purely  human  Jesus.  The  disciples  were  greater  than  the 
master,  the  servants  than  the  lord.  Nor  is  this  the  whole  of  the 
matter.  At  one  point,  at  least,  Loisy,  in  harmony  with  Harnack, 
represents  Jesus  as  beyond  measure  visionary,  as  in  fact  insane. 


xvi  PREFACE 

He  thinks  that  the  Saviour  undoubtedly  spoke  the  words,  "  I  will 
destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  build  it  again  "  (i,  99)* 
which,  as  Loisy  fancies,  were  borrowed  from  the  real  trial  and 
(of  course)  transferred  to  the  purely  fictitious  trial — by  night, 
before  Caiaphas  (i,  102  ;  ii,  599  :  "  ce  proces  nocturne,  qui  sans 
doute  n'a  pas  eu  lieu  ").  Moreover,  agreeing  with  Wellhausen, 
he  ascribes  to  the  Saviour  a  caution  that  savours  unpleasantly  of 
cowardice:  "As  he  travelled  through  Galilee  and  did  not  wish 
any  one  to  know  it  "  (Wellhausen).  Loisy  explains  "this  incognito  " 
by  "the  anxiety  not  to  attract  the  attention  of  Herod"  (i,  93). 
In  general,  in  estimating  the  monumental  work  of  Loisy,  one  may 
recall  his  judgment  of  the  net  result  of  the  illuminating  labour 
of  his  colleague  in  Gottingen,  "  which,  if  it  clears  up  many  a 
detail,  certainly  does  not  tend  to  render  more  intelligible  either 
the  life  or  the  death  of  Jesus."  Yes,  we  may  go  still  further. 
Not  only  do  the  works  of  this  trio  of  representative  critics 
contribute  naught  to  our  understanding,  whether  of  the  life  or  of 
the  death  of  Jesus,  but  their  marked  effect  is  to  void  both  the 
one  and  the  other  of  all  significance  for  the  well-attested  Proto- 
Christian  movement,  and,  what  is  still  worse,  to  rob  the  personality 
of  the  Saviour  of  all  that  might  inspire  love  or  reverence  or  even 
admiration.  We  may  smile  at  the  romantic  and  brilliantly 
coloured  painting  of  Renan,  but  it  is  in  many  ways  preferable  to 
the  dim  and  scanty  pencil-sketching  of  the  later  masters. 

Wellhausen  has,  to  be  sure,  clearly  perceived  that  his  historical 
Jesus  is  only  a  shadow,  and  destitute  of  any  religious  value,  and 
for  that  very  reason  almost  instantly  blurred  by  the  primitive 
community.  Very  weighty  are  the  words  on  the  last  page  of  his 
"  Introduction  "  :  "  For  what  is  lost  with  the  Gospel,  the  historical 
Jesus,  as  the  basis  of  religion,  is  only  a  very  doubtful  and  unsatis- 
factory compensation.  But  for  his  death  he  would  never  have 
been  historical  at  all.  The  impression  left  by  his  career  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  it  was  not  completed,  but  was  abruptly  broken  off 
when  it  had  scarcely  begun."  Similarly  Harnack  opens  the 
important  fifth   chapter  (op,  cit.)  with  the  words  :  "Christ's  death 

was  mightier  than  his  life it  could  not  shatter  the  belief  in 

him  as  a  messenger  sent  from  God,  and  thence  arose  the  convic- 
tion of  his  Resurrection." 


PREFACE  xvii 

Such  is  the  very  best  that  Liberalism  has  to  offer  in  explana- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  Proto-Christian  preaching.  Was  there 
ever  anywhere  an  all-important  phenomenon  so  insufficiently 
explained  ?  Not  only  is  the  explanation  manifestly  inadequate, 
but  it  is  even  self-contradictory.  Hundreds  of  noble  and  impres- 
sive persons  have  suffered  sudden,  premature,  and  tragic  death, 
but  which  of  them  has  been  instantly  preached  abroad  over  the 
world  as  arisen  from  the  grave,  ascended  to  heaven,  and  clothed 
with  all  the  might,  majesty,  and  dominion  of  the  Most  High? 
Which  of  them  has  been  forthwith  enthroned  as  Lord  and  God, 
as  Alpha  and  Omega,  as  Ruler  of  the  universe  and  co-equal 
with  deity  supreme?  Nay,  the  death  explains  nothing  at  all. 
Never  could  it  have  been  "  mightier  than  the  life,"  had  not  the 
life  been  unexampled,  without  any  parallel,  and  beyond  all 
imitation. 

The  assumed  wonderful  effect  of  the  death  presumes  a  still 
more  wonderful — yea,  even  miraculous — life  ;  naught  else  could 
have  crazed  and  enchanted  the  disciples  in  such  astounding  and 
unheard-of  fashion.  The  people  believed  on  John  also  as  sent 
from  God  ;  apparently  the  impression  of  his  personality  in  life  was 
quite  as  deep  as  that  made  by  Jesus  ;  his  career  also  was  inter- 
rupted just  as  abruptly  ;  neither  was  the  belief  in  him  thereby 
shattered.  Nevertheless,  his  most  faithful  followers  never  dreamed 
that  he  was  re-risen  and  ascended  to  heaven,  there  to  be  worshipped, 
seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

Next  to  the  instantaneous  proclamation  of  Jesus  Divine  afteY 
his  supposed  death  on  the  malefactor's  cross,  the  most  urgent 
riddle  of  early  Christianity  is  the  practically  immediate  mission  to 
the  heathen,  directly  against  the  supposed  precept  and  precedent 
of  Jesus,  and  without  any  intelligible  origination — a  mission  that 
became  at  once  world-wide  in  its  extension  and  its  success.  As 
is  set  forth  in  Der  vorchristliche  JesuSy  the  preaching  of  Paul  can 
throw  no  light  on  this  mystery,  for  it  cannot  explain  Ananias  of 
Damascus,  nor  Apollos  of  Alexandria,  nor  the  Twelve  at  Ephesus, 
nor  Aquila  and  Priscilla  at  Rome.  The  fact  of  the  primitive 
worship  of  Jesus  and  the  fact  of  the  primitive  mission  to  all  the 
Gentiles  are  the  two  cardinal  facts  of  Proto-Christianity,  both  of 
which  must  be  explained  by  any  acceptable  theory  of  Christian 


xviii  PREFACE 

origins,  both  of  which  are  explained  fully  by  interpreting  Proto- 
Christianity  as  from  the  start  a  more  or  less  concerted  movement 
to  enlighten  the  Gentiles,  to  introduce  everywhere  the  monotheistic 
Jesus-cult,  and  neither  of  which  has  ever  been  explained  in  any 
feature  by  the  utmost  ingenuity  in  the  manipulation  of  the  liberal 
notion  of  the  purely  human  Jesus. 

If  any  one  still  doubts  this,  let  him  read  the  recent  works  of 
Wrede  and  J.  Weiss,  and  the  eloquent  championship  of  the  latter's 
"  eschatological "  theory  by  Schweitzer,  whose  great  work.  Von 
Reimarus  zu  Wrede  ("The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus"),  is  a 
cemetery  of  departed  hypotheses,  including  the  "  eschatological " 
itself.  This  is  not  the  place  to  controvert  this  latter  in  detail,  nor 
is  it  needed,  for  Schweitzer  has  to  chide  Weiss  for  shrinking  back 
in  his  later  work  from  his  own  doctrine,  which,  in  fact,  sees  in  the 
Jesus  merely  a  Messianic  agitator  whose  enthusiasm,  as  in  Loisy's 
representation,  verged  closely  on  lunacy.  Of  all  the  "Jesus- 
shapes,"  this  seems  the  least  lovely  and  the  most  inadequate.  It 
explains  neither  of  the  two  cardinal  facts  ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
makes  each  tenfold  harder  to  understand  than  before.  The 
eschatological  theory  is,  indeed,  the  reductio  ad  ahsiirdum  of  the 
liberal  purely  human  hypothesis  ;  while  its  logical  successor,  the 
psychopathic  theory  of  Binet-Sangl^  and  his  peers,  is  the  reductio 
ad  nauseam. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  purely  human  Jesus 
is  but  shifting  sand  ;  that  it  affords  no  firm  footing  for  liberal 
critics,  no  matter  how  strongly  they  may  emphasise  this  or  that 
detail  as  certain  or  undoubted  or  even  indispensable.  All  such 
averments  have  only  rhetorical  meaning.  How  empty  they  are 
logically  may  be  concluded  from  this  circumstance  :  Their  sole 
foundation  is  the  fact  that  the  detail  in  question  agrees  with  a 
preconceived  conception  concerning  Jesus.  Meanwhile  not  one 
step  is  taken  to  justify  this  conception,  to  prove  it  necessary,  or  to 
show  that  the  incident  in  question  ever  really  happened.  As  an 
example,  consider  the  following :  Harnack  discusses  the  thanks- 
giving (Matthew  xi,  25-30) — manifestly  a  hymn,  an  outpouring  of 
the  Christian  consciousness  in  view  of  the  widespread  triumph  of 
the  Jesus-cult  among  the  Gentiles  ;  but  he  holds  it  is  Imaginable 
that  his  Imagined  Jesus  could  have  actually  said  something  of  the 


PREFACE  xix 

kind,  and  therefore  expresses  himself  thus:  "The  saying  thus 
contains  nothing  that  can  be  objected  to,  and  may  therefore  be 
used  as  one  of  the  most  important  sources  of  our  knowledge  of 
the  personality  of  our  Lord  "  {The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  p.  220).  Mark 
well  the  word  "therefore,"  and  the  implied  major  premise:  All 
(relevant)  Gospel  matter  containing  naught  objectionable  may  be 
used  as  a  source  of  our  knowledge  of  the  personality  of  Jesus  ;  that 
is,  no  Evangelist  could  and  would  invent  a  wholly  unobjectionable 
"saying"  of  Jesus!  Why  not?  Is  that  really  true?  What 
could  be  less  objectionable  than  the  prayer  on  the  cross?  And 
yet  it  "is  beyond  all  doubt  interpolated."  The  incaution  of  this 
major  is  plainly  evident,  and  yet  precisely  this  dark  thread  of  hasty 
assumption  stretches  itself  through  the  whole  Harnack-Loisy- 
Wellhausen  web  of  argument.  Assuredly  such  a  fallacy  cannot 
always  escape  the  keen  eye  of  Liberalism  ;  and  no  wonder  that  ■ 
Bousset,  in  a  recent  address  in  Berlin,  seemed  to  be  concerned  to  j 
prepare  the  temper  of  his  hearers  for  a  complete  and  final  abandon- 
ment, at  no  distant  date,  of  all  forms  of  historicism. 

In  the  admirable  and  priceless  book  just  quoted  Harnack  calls 
attention  in  a  noteworthy  footnote  to  the  fact,  which  some  doubt- 
monger  might  perchance  be  tempted  to  exploit,  that  this  most  primi- 
tive source  (Q)  breaks  off  before  the  Passiorv-week  !  It  may  be  some 
satisfaction  to  the  historian  of  dogma  to  learn  that  exactly  at  this 
point  his  foreboding  was  true  and  inspired  ;  yea,  that  even  before 
it  was  uttered  it  had  already  gone  into  fulfilment.  During  more 
than  twenty  years  it  had  always  seemed  to  the  present  writer  that 
the  "  Sayings  "  presented  the  oldest  extant  literary  form  in  which 
the  Jesus-cult  clothed  itself,  as  it  gradually  took  shape  among  the 
less  orthodox  Jewish  sectaries  in  the  inner  religious  circles  of  the 
Dispersion.  Even  the  Marcan  symbolism  seemed  to  him  to  be  a 
somewhat  later  thought,  and  much  of  the  apparently  historical 
looked  like  a  transparent  invention,  to  visualise  or  dramatise 
"  Sayings  "  already  current.  To  be  sure,  the  counter-proof  of 
Wellhausen  looks  very  strong,  and  his  philologic  reasoning  is 
always  instructive,  and  sometimes  confounding  ;  but  it  can  hardly 
avail  to  overcome  the  other  total  impression  permanently.  How- 
ever, this  interesting  question  of  relative  priority  seems  to  entail 
with  its  answer  no  especial  consequences;  perhaps  it  may  not  even 


XX  PREFACE 

be  categorically  answerable.  Inasmuch  as  both  the  "  Sayings  " 
and  the  Proto-Marcan  source  originated  gradually — none  can  say 
in  how  many  years — it  may  well  be,  as  Jiilicher  has  conjectured, 
that  they  are  in  some  measure  contemporary,  each  the  older,  each 
the  younger.  In  any  case,  it  must  strike  the  careful  reader  that 
the  whole  Judaean  ministry  does  not  seem  to  go  with  the  Galilean 
together  as  one  piece,  but  rather  looks  like  an  afterthought,  an 
appendix.  This  feeling  has  often  come  over  the  present  writer, 
and  years  before  he  had  the  happiness  to  read  Harnack's  book  it 
was  greatly  strengthened  by  the  observation  of  the  fact  to  which 
Harnack  calls  attention,  that  the  Logoi-source  knows  naught  of  the 
Passion.  For  a  while  the  importance  thereof  was  not  perceived  ; 
but  later,  even  at  the  risk  of  being  dubbed  absurd  and  impertinent, 
the  writer  was  forced  to  regard  the  fact  as  highly  significant,  since 
it  distinctively  suggests,  even  though  it  may  not  prove,  that  the 
personal  historical  form  in  which  the  Jesus-cult  is  clothed  in  the 
Gospels  has  undergone  a  gradual  development.  In  the  first  rank 
would  seem  to  have  stood  the  great  idea  of  the  Redeemer,  the 
Saviour-God.  The  redemption,  the  salvation,  referred  to  ignor- 
ance of  Gody  false  worship,  idolatry  in  its  myriad  forms.  It  was 
only  the  Gnosis,  the  true  knowledge  of  God,  that  could  work  the  cure. 
And  the  knowledge  could  be  introduced,  communicated,  spread 
abroad  by  a  doctrine  only.  Hence  Jesus  was  at  first  presented 
as  the  healing  God  (in  Mark  and  the  Gospel  according  to  Hebrews), 
and  perhaps  still  earlier  as  the  Teacher  (in  the  Logoi-source  Q). 
Moreover,  the  circuit  of  this  healing,  teaching  activity  (two 
equivalent  aspects  of  the  same  cult)  was  strictly  Galilean — i.e., 
Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  was  fittingly  chosen  as  the  symbolic  region, 
where  out  of  the  midnight  of  the  shadow  of  death  the  glorious 
light  of  the  all-saving  cult  arose.  In  time  the  stately  doctrine, 
"  the  teaching  concerning  the  Jesus,"  spread  itself  out,  budding 
and  putting  forth  shoots  like  a  noble  tree,  on  which  many  wild- 
olive  branches  were  engrafted — many  related,  many  unrelated 
propositions  were  incorporated  in  the  growing  doctrinal  body,  and 
were  more  or  less  perfectly  assimilated.  Among  these  was  the 
old-world  notion  of  a  "  Dying  God,"  which  was  fused  together 
with  the  Platonic  thought  of  the  crucified  Just  and  the  Isaianic 
idea  of  the  vicariously  suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah.     Meantime 


PREFACE  xxt 

the  growing  estrangement  of  the  Jews  suggested  that  Jerusalem, 
and  Jerusalem  alone,  was  the  place  where  the  pathetic  fifth  act  of  this 
drama  of  "  stateliest  and  most  regal  argument  "  should  be  unrolled. 
Hence  arose  the  Passion-week  as  the  awful  though  not  originally 
intended  climax,  and  naturally  the  Resurrection  as  necessary 
epilogue.  Accordingly,  that  Q  finds  no  place  for  this  sublime 
finale  need  bewilder  no  one,  and  accords  perfectly  with  the  view 
herein  set  forth  of  Proto-Christianity,  though  hardly,  if  at  all, 
reconcilable  with  the  hitherto  prevailing  conception. 

In  his  valuable  edition  of  the  Odes  of  Solomon  the  unwearied 
Berliner,  although  properly  complaining  that  an  "  unauthorised 
dilettante  "  has  "disquieted  Christendom,"  yet  rejoices  in  the  fact 
that  the  Odes  were  not  earlier  published,  else  the  disquieter  had 
certainly  perverted  them  to  his  own  unholy  uses.  Visibly  a  case 
of  special  providence.  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  these  Odes, 
or  the  question  of  Christian  interpolation  ;  but  it  may  be  allow- 
able to  call  attention  to  a  syllogism  whereby  they  are  forcibly 
coerced  into  rank  among  the  witnesses  for  the  liberal  "Jesusbild." 

Harnack  concedes  and  underscores  that  these  Odes  discover 
for  us  a  possible  source  both  of  the  thought  and  temper,  and  also 
of  the  form  of  expression,  met  with  in  the  Johannine  Scriptures. 
The  great  importance  of  Harris's  find  is  in  this  respect  clear  ;  in 
fact,  in  reading  the  Odes,  one  seems  to  be  moving  in  the  atmo- 
sphere of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  "  Even  in  details,"  says  Harnack, 
"the  'Johannine'  seems  to  be  prepared  beforehand  in  these  Odes." 
However,  he  does  not  find  therein  the  "Jesus  as  he  presents 
himself  to  us  in  the  purified  sources  of  the  Scriptures — i.e.^  the 
historical  Jesus."  Granted.  And  what  does  Harnack  conclude 
therefrom?  "The  historicity  and  the  originality  of  Jesus  appear 
confirmed  anew."  A  remarkable  piece  of  reasoning.  Suddenly 
there  comes  to  light  a  long-vanished  psalm-book,  which  attests 
clearly  the  existence  of  a  form  hitherto  unsuspected  of  intense 
religious  individualism  in  early  Christian  or  pre-Christian  times 
(50  B.C.  to  A.D.  67)  in  a  remote  branch  of  Judaism.  On  one  (the 
Johannine)  circle  of  ideas  and  conceptions  of  Jesus  this  unexpected 
discovery  shows  an  almost  blinding  light ;  on  another  (the  Synoptic) 
it  sheds  scarcely  a  single  ray  ;  hence  it  is  inferred  that  no  new  light 
can  be  thrown  on  this  latter  !     "  The  historicity  and  originality  of 


xxii  PREFACE 

Jesus    appear    confirmed    anew."     Consider   the    syllogism   that 
guarantees  this  conclusion  : — 

What  is  attested  in  the  newly-published  manuscript  (as  the 
thought  and  feeling  of  the  Johannine  Scriptures)  cannot  be 
accounted  as  historical  or  original  with  the  evangelists  ; 

The  purified  Synoptic  "Jesus-shape"  is  not  so  attested  in  the 
manuscript ; 

Therefore  this  shape  may  be  accounted  historical  and  original 
(its  "historicity  and  originality  are  confirmed  anew  "). 

From  two  negative  premises  a  positive  conclusion  is  drawn. 
It  is  not  so  written  in  approved  texts  on  logic.  Why,  to-morrow 
another  psalm-book  of  some  other  sect  may  be  unearthed,  which 
may  illumine  the  Synoptics  quite  as  brilliantly  as  these  Odes  have 
illumined  the  Johannines. 

This  leads  to  the  consideration  of  Dr.  Schechter's  very  recent 
publication,  Fragments  of  a  Zadokite  Work.  In  spite  of  the  great 
learning  and  ingenuity  that  he  has  expended  upon  this  mysterious 
book,  its  seals  do  not  yet  seem  to  be  fully  loosed.  The  discoverer 
himself  leaves  ample  room  for  differences  of  opinion.  However, 
of  one  thing  we  may  be  sure,  that  Margoliouth's  premature  expo- 
sitions, which  sought  so  eagerly  to  find  in  the  venerable  docu- 
ment some  confirmation  of  prevalent  prejudices  in  favour  of  the 
historicity  of  Jesus,  have  hopelessly  miscarried.  Indeed,  it  is  not 
so  easy  to  take  them  at  all  seriously.  To  identify  these  Zadokites 
with  primitive  Christians,  even  the  genuine  Jewish,  to  discover 
Jesus  himself  in  the  "Teacher  of  righteousness"  {i.e,^  of  exact 
observance  of  the  Law),  this  indeed  calls  for  courageous  criticism. 
Even  the  Haggadic,  much  more  the  Halachic,  parts  of  this 
fragment  rebel  on  almost  every  page  against  such  exegesis. 
This  congregation,  in  fact,  far  surpasses  even  the  Pharisees  in 
the  strictness  of  its  nomism — e,g.^  it  is  declared  (against  the 
Rabbinic  rule)  :  "  If  it  (a  beast)  falls  into  a  pit  or  a  ditch,  he  shall 

not  raise   it   on   the   Sabbath And  if  any  person  falls    into  a 

gathering  of  water  or  into  a  place  of he  shall  not  bring  him  up 

by  a  ladder  or  a  cord  or  instrument."  Truly  this  is  a  righteous- 
ness that  "  exceeds  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees," 
and  possibly  Matthew  v,  20  may  squint  towards  something  of 
the  kind  ;  but  that  it  proceeded  from  an  historical  Jesus  or  made 


PREFACE  xxiii 

itself  felt  in  Proto-Christianity  is  entirely  unthinkable.  Mar- 
goliouth's  whole  interpretation  is  so  evidently  biassed  and  made 
to  order  that  one  need  dwell  on  it  no  longer.  With  Rabbi 
Marg-olis  we  may  rest  confident  that  the  date  of  the  origin  of  the 
document  is  definitely  pre-Christian  {Jewish  Coviment^  xxxiii,  i8,  i). 
We  may  also  accept  the  judgment  of  Schechter  (p.  xxix):  "Natur- 
ally all  this  class  of  pseudepigrapha  is  of  supreme  importance  for 
the  history  of  Christianity,  which  undoubtedly  was  the  consumma- 
tion of  all  sectarian  endeavour  preceding  it,  and  must  have 
absorbed  all  the  hostile  elements  arrayed  against  official  Judaism." 

This  interesting  discovery  reveals  to  us  a  phase  of  Jewish 
sectarianism  almost  the  polar  opposite  of  that  revealed  in  the  Odes 
of  Solomon.  Novir,  do  these  two  poles  form  the  whole  sphere  of 
non-official  Judaism  ?  Or  shall  we  rather  believe  that  a  rich  and 
rank  growth  flourished  in  the  mid-region  ?  Certainly  this  inter- 
mediate realm  was  ample,  and  it  would  ^o  against  all  precedent 
and  all  sound  human  understanding  not  to  assume  the  presence 
therein  of  intermediate  forms.  Unless  the  falcon  eye  and  ruthless 
hand  of  the  old  Catholic  Church  have  done  their  work  only  too 
well,  we  may  expect  future  researches  to  throw  light  on  the 
Synoptics.  In  any  case,  even  the  worst,  the  lack  of  such  testi- 
monies can  militate  against  the  existence  of  such  Proto-Christian 
sects  and  ideas  only  in  the  same  sense  and  degree  in  which  the 
well-known  "  missing  links "  disprove  the  general  doctrine  of 
descent  with  modification. 

The  author  will  very  gladly  learn  from  any  opponent  who  will 
call  his  attention  to  any  mistakes  in  statement  of  fact  or  process 
of  reasoning  in  this  volume  ;  for  he  cannot  doubt  that  such  lapses 
are  to  be  found  therein,  especially  in  view  of  the  circumstances 
attendant  upon  both  the  composition  and  the  publication  of  his 
critical  works.  But  not  even  many  such  could  really  weaken  the 
general  structure  of  thought,  just  as  a  wall  may  still  remain  firm 
and  unshaken  in  spite  of  the  removal  of  divers  crumbling  stones. 
It  is  the  collective  judgment  that  must  finally  prevail,  and  it  is  to 
the  formation  and  justification  of  the  same  that  the  thoughtful 
reader  will  give  his  special  attention. 

It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  the  sharpest  polemic 
against  the  views  of  distinguished  critics  by  no  means  implies  any 


xxiv  X  PREFACE 

depreciation  jof  their  abilities  or  their  achievements.  Precisely  as 
the  most  p^fect  flower  of  liberal  criticism  have  they  been  chosen 
as  special  objects  of  attack,  since  they  allow  the  a  fortiori 
argument  :  If  they  do  these  things  in  the  green  tree,  what  shall 
be  done  in  the  dry?  If  unexcelled  learning  and  acumen  must  yet 
leave  unsolved  nearly  all  that  demands  solution,  what  is  there  to 
hope  from  any  other  efforts  along  the  same  lines?  Surely  the 
fault  lies  not  in  the  men,  but  in  the  methods,  in  the  postulates, 
with  which  the  problem  has  been  approached.  Such  is  the  author's 
deepest  conviction,  and  it  is  exactly  the  perception  of  this  necessity 
of  a  new  hypothesis  that  has  emboldened  him  to  enter  the  arena 
against  specialists  far  more  erudite  than  he.  For  it  grows  daily 
more  manifest  that  no  conceivable  keenness  or  scholarship  can 
ever  avail  to  derive  the  Proto-Christian  propaganda  from  a  single 
personal  purely  human  focus,  even  as  neither  patience  nor  knowledge 
nor  mathematical  adroitness  can  ever  suffice  to  trisect  an  angle  or 
to  square  a  circle.  The  present  is  a  case  where  the  battle  is  not 
to  the  strong,  where  the  weak  may  confound  the  mighty. 

A  well-disposed  reviewer  of  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  has 
expressed  the  opinion  that  the  book  contains  the  most  and  the 
main  arguments  at  the  command  of  the  author.  This  volume 
should  reveal  and  correct  that  error.  Let  no  one  suppose,  however, 
that  the  author's  quiver  is  herewith  emptied.  On  the  contrary, 
the  evidences  not  yet  produced  seem  to  him  to  be  both  abundant 
and  convincing. 

"  Her  strongest- winged  shaft  the  muse  is  nursing  still." 


W.  B.  S. 


New  Orleans,  April  75-,  igi2. 


PART  I. 

THE  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 


Longe  deuvicinia  veritatis  erratis  qui  putatis  Deum  credi  aut  meruisse 
noxium  aut  potuisse  terrenum. — Octavius. 

ORIENTATION 

I.  When  in  1906  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  was  laid  before 
the  critical  public,  it  was  the  aim  of  the  author  thereby  to 
invite  the  attention  of  scholars  to  a  body  of  obscure  pheno- 
mena that  seemed  thitherto  to  have  been  undeservedly  over- 
looked, and  to  bear  very  weighty  witness  touching  the  most 
important  and  the  most  fascinating  as  well  as  the  most 
perplexing  of  all  historical  problems — the  problem  of  the 
origin  of  Primitive  Christianity.  The  material  therein 
published  was  in  fact  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  mass 
already  then  assembled,  and  in  manuscript,  but  still  not 
quite  ready  for  the  press.  The  difficulty  in  securing  this 
readiness  was  rather  of  an  artistic  than  of  a  critical  or 
scientific  character.  The  variety  of  matter  was  so  great,  it 
had  been  gathered  from  so  many  mutually  alien  and  widely 
separated  fields  of  research,  that  only  by  constant  and  extreme 
coercion  could  it  be  reduced  to  anything  like  organic  unity. 
In  fact,  the  author  well-nigh  despaired  of  attaining  any  such 
unity,  and  had  planned  and  brought  far  towards  completion 
five  volumes  dealing  each  with  some  distinct  aspect  of  the 
matter.  Of  these  the  first  was  "The  Pre-Christian  Jesus" 
(a  kind  of  reconnaissance  in  force) ;  the  second  (about  half 
written)  was  to  bear  some  such  title  as  "Gnostic  Elements  in 
the  New  Testament" ;  the  third  (also  about  half  written)  the 
title  "Behind  the  New  Testament";  the  fourth  (nearly  com- 
plete) would  deal  with  the  "Pauline  Epistles,"  especially 
Romans  ;  the  fifth  (hardly  then  begun)  was  to  consummate 
the  investigation  by  a  treatment  of  the  "  Witness  of  the 
Gospels." 


:2  . .  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

2.  Transferred  by  request  in  1906  to  a  chair  of  philo- 
sophy, the  writer  found  little  time,  under  the  pressure  of 
professional  duties,  to  give  to  the  actual  further  preparation 
of  these  incomplete  volumes.  Appointed  as  Delegate  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Pan-American  Scientific  Congress  held 
at  Santiago,  Chile,  in  1908,  he  was  compelled  for  many 
months  to  lay  aside  critical  studies.  These  were  resumed  in 
1909,  and  it  is  in  some  measure  the  results  of  such  later 
studies  that  are  now  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  specialists. 
These  results  form  a  first  part  of  the  fifth  volume  already 
mentioned,  which  it  was  not  the  original  purpose  to  print 
until  the  other  volumes  had  been  published.  The  change 
in  the  order  of  publication  has  been  induced  by  a  number 
of  circumstances. 

3.  In  the  first  place,  a  careful  consideration  of  all  the 
reviews  of  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  that  came  to  hand,  as 
well  as  of  many  private  communications,  showed  clearly 
that  the  prevailing  criticism  relied  for  its  support  mainly  on 
the  Gospels,  on  the  "Jesusbild,"  the  personality  supposed 
to  be  delineated  there  in  such  bold,  vivid,  impressive,  and 
withal  original  features  as  to  settle  once  for  all  the  question 
of  its  historicity,  and  to  dull  the  edge  of  all  counter- 
argument that  might  be  drawn  from  collateral  considera- 
tions. It  seemed,  indeed,  that  it  would  almost  be  love's 
labour  lost  to  carry,  however  successfully,  all  the  outposts 
of  the  "  liberal "  position  so  long  as  this  central  citadel 
remained  unattempted.  In  fact,  it  might  easily  be  and 
almost  certainly  would  be  construed  as  a  sign  of  conscious 
weakness,  of  felt  inability  to  meet  opponents  in  their  full 
strength,  if  the  writer  should  any  longer  delay  to  join 
battle  on  their  own  chosen  ground,  where,  to  be  sure,  the 
final  test  of  argument  must  in  any  case  be  made. 

4.  To  this  view  of  the  matter  the  writer  was  particularly 
inclined  by  the  remark  of  a  discreet  reviewer,  Windisch,  in 
the  Theologische  Rundschau^  xii,  4,  149:  ''The  author  might 
be  in  the  right,  if  we  knew  concerning  Jesus  only  the  little 
that  he  has  touched  in  his  sketches."  Here  the  author's 
reasonings  seem  to  be  definitely  rejected,  not  on  their  own 
"tneritSy  but  in  view  of  supposed  more  extensive  and  accurate 
knowledge  touching  Jesus,  and  such  is  to  be  found,  if  at 


ORIENTATION  3 

all,  only  in  the  New  Testament,  particularly  in  the  Gospels. 
On  reading  this  deliverance,  the  writer  determined  to 
abandon  the  scheme  of  publication  long  fixed  in  his  mind, 
though  it  still  appeared  to  be  scientifically  preferable,  and  to 
proceed  at  once  with  what  might  be  called  the  Evangelic 
argument.  The  book  herewith  offered  to  the  public  is  a 
partial  fulfilment  of  that  determination. 

5.  The  plan  then  adopted  consisted  in  a  minute  study, 
verse  by  verse,  of  the  Gospels,  especially  the  Synoptics,  and 
first  of  all  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  This  study  had  been  carried 
through  Mark  and  half  through  Matthew,  when  it  was  inter- 
rupted and  partially  suspended  by  the  urgency  of  profes- 
sional duties.  Nevertheless,  it  was  still  kept  up  until  the 
echoes  of  the  recent  polemic  in  Germany  began  to  invade 
the  writer's  ears.  Then  it  seemed  wise  once  more  to  reform 
plans,  not  to  await  the  final  completion  of  a  verse-by- verse 
exposition  of  the  Gospels,  but  to  gather  up  some  of  the 
more  important  results  already  reached,  and  to  submit  them 
to  the  judgment  of  the  competent.  This  course  seemed  the 
more  to  be  recommended  as  these  results  appeared  in  them- 
selves sufficient  to  justify  very  definite  and  far-reaching  con- 
clusions, and  unlikely  to  be  seriously  modified  in  general 
outline  by  still  further  inquisition,  though,  of  course,  leaving 
very  many  details  to  be  filled  in  and  many  interesting  and 
important  questions  to  be  put  and  answered. 

6.  Such,  then,  is  the  genesis  of  the  book  that  now  lies 
before  the  reader,  a  book  not  at  all  such  as  lay  and  still 
lies  in  the  mind  of  the  author,  but  such  as  the  circumstances 
of  the  case  have  moulded  it  in  a  measure  against  his  will. 
Herewith  is  implied  no  apology  for  the  content  of  the  work, 
but  only  an  historical  explanation  of  its  form,  so  different 
from  the  cherished  conception. 

7.  It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the  inherent  diversity 
of  the  material  under  consideration  has  firmly  defied  reduc- 
tion to  perfect  organic  unity.  Indeed,  the  author's  own 
research  in  this  region  has  not  been  like  unto  a  straight- 
trunked  towering  pine  of  the  North,  nor  even  to  some  single- 
stemmed  though  wide-branched  evergreen  oak  of  the  South  ; 
but  rather  to  some  banyan  tree  of  India,  that  sends  down 
shoot  after  shoot  and  strikes  them  into  the  earth  wherever 


4  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

the  soil  permits,  and  so  spreads  its  many-footed  growth  over 
the  whole  region  round  about.  Such  seems  to  be  the  literal 
state  of  the  case,  and  it  is  one  that  critics  might  do  well  to 
observe  carefully.  For  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  any 
proper  logical  evaluation  of  the  considerations  presented  in 
this  volume  and  in  its  predecessor  to  note  that  these  con- 
siderations are  mutually  interdependent  though  mutually 
confirmatory  items  of  evidence.  They  must  be  refuted 
singly,  it  is  true,  but  that  is  by  no  means  enough.  They 
must  also  be  refuted  collectively.  The  rods  must  be  broken 
one  by  one,  and  they  must  also  be  broken  in  the  compact 
bundle  of  all.  It  must  be  shown  that  the  whole  system  of 
facts  presented,  and  the  whole  mode  of  their  conjunction, 
whereby  they  acquire  coherence  and  interdependence, 
whereby  they  present  themselves  to  our  understanding  as  a 
thinkable  organic  unity — that  all  this  internal  harmony  and 
mutual  illumination  is  unreal  and  illusory,  and  that  it  is  only 
when  viewed  from  the  opposite  pole  of  opinion,  from  the 
hypothesis  of  the  mere  humanity  of  Jesus,  that  this  whole 
complexus  of  facts  acquires  consistency  and  transparency, 
and  satisfies  the  reason,  whose  supreme  function  it  is  to 
reduce  the  facts  of  the  universe  to  logical  order. 

8.  Now,  it  is  precisely  this  duty  of  appreciation  as  a  whole, 
of  striking  a  collective  judgment,  that  seems  so  imperative, 
and  at  the  same  time  so  disagreeable,  to  the  prevalent 
criticism.  Yet  it  cannot  be  postponed  nor  avoided  inde- 
finitely. The  mind  must  accept,  sooner  or  later,  one  or  the 
other  of  two  opposite  conceptions  ;  must  accept  it  as  a  whole, 
not  in  this  or  that  detail,  and  must  reject  the  other  as  a  whole, 
and  not  merely  in  this  or  that  particular. 

THE  DILEMMA 

9.  For  there  is  a  certain  sufficiently  well-ascertained  body 
of  literary-historical  Proto-Christian  facts,  and  these  must  be 
reduced  to  unity.  Chief  and  supreme  among  them  is  the 
fact  of  the  worships  the  cult^  of  the  Jesus,  This  fact  is  all- 
dominant  in  the  New  Testament ;  it  seems  impossible  to 
exaggerate  its  hegemony.  The  concept  of  the  Jesus,  if  we 
estimate  it  merely  statistically,  far  outweighs  any  other.     Its 


THE  DILEMMA  5 

only  rival,  the  Christ,  is  left  much  overbalanced,  and  in  the 
Gospels  is  not  comparable,  appearing  almost  only  as  a  late 
intruder.  The  worship  of  this  Being  is  the  very  essence  of  the 
New  Religion.  Strike  out  this  essence,  and  there  is  left  very 
little — indeed,  hardly  anything — that  is  worth  fighting  about. 
Eliminate  the  doctrine  of  the  Jesus,  and  what  would  become 
even  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ?  It  would  be  reduced  to 
a  more  or  less  disconnected  series  of  moral,  philosophical, 
theological  essays,  such  as  two  or  more  Greek-Roman-Judaic 
Stoics  might  have  composed.  The  golden  thread  that  holds 
them  together  in  unity  is  a  Doctrine  of  the  Jesus.  It  seems 
needless  to  enlarge  upon  what  no  one,  perhaps,  would  deny — 
the  regulative  moment  of  the  Jesus  and  the  worship  of  the 
Jesus  for  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  and  the  whole  of 
Proto-Christianity. 

10.  That  this  Being,  this  Jesus,  is  presented  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  accepted  in  all  following  Christian  history, 
as  a  God  is  evident  beyond  argument.  It  is  made  clear  on 
almost  every  page  of  the  New  Testament  with  all  the  clearness 
that  can  belong  to  human  speech.  There  is  no  debating  with 
anyone  that  denies  it.  But  it  is  equally  clear  that  He  is  also 
presented  as  a  man,  as  conceived,  born,  reared,  hungering, 
thirsting,  speaking,  acting,  suffering,  dying,  and  buried — 
and  then  raised  again.  How,  then,  are  we  to  conceive  this 
Being?  The  answer  of  the  present  Church,  of  Orthodoxy,  is 
unequivocal.  We  must  conceive  him  precisely  as  he  is 
represented,  both  as  God  and  also  as  Man.  But  suppose 
this  be  impossible,  in  spite  of  all  learned  subtleties  about  the 
essential  divinity  of  Humanity  (which,  of  course,  in  a  certain 
sense,  may  and  must  be  accepted)  ?  Again  the  answer  of 
Orthodoxy  is  unequivocal :  though  we  cannot  think  it,  nor 
understand  it,  yet  we  must  believe  it  none  the  less  ;  and  this, 
it  is  said,  is  the  victory  of  faith.  With  this  position,  so 
highly  respectable  and  venerable,  and  in  a  certain  measure 
so  logical  and  self-consistent,  we  have  at  present  nothing  to 
do.  Right  or  wrong,  for  good  or  for  ill,  the  human  spirit 
has  gone  definitely  and  finally  beyond  it,  and  it  is  hopeless 
to  suppose  it  will  ever  retrace  its  steps.  Indeed,  it  could  not 
if  it  would.  The  reason  of  this  and  the  next  centuries  can 
no  more  believe  in  the  God-man  (in  the  orthodox  sense)  than 


6  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

it  can  believe  in  the  geocentric  theory  of  Ptolemy  or  the 
special  creations  of  Linnaeus.  For  reason,  constituted  as  it 
now  is,  the  God-man  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  an  incon- 
gruity with  which  it  can  have  no  peace,  with  which  it  can 
never  be  reconciled.  The  ultramontane  is  right — to  accept 
this  fundamental  notion  is  to  abjure  reason.  Some  minds 
seem  able  to  do  this — minds  in  which  there  is  a  rift  running 
all  through,  a  fundamental  duality,  minds  built  like  ocean 
liners,  on  the  compartmental  plan,  with  no  intercommunica- 
tion between  compartments.  Such  minds  obey  the  laws  of 
universal  reason  in  all  matters  but  the  most  important. 
When  they  unlock  their  oratory  they  lock  up  their  laboratory.' 
With  intellects  so  constituted  we  have  no  controversy  in  these 
pages. 

II.  It  is  only  with  normally  acting  intelligence  that  we 
are  here  concerned.  Such  intelligence  must  resolve  the 
antinomy  God-man  into  its  constituents  ;  it  must  affirm  the 
one  and  therewith  deny  the  other.  In  view,  then,  of  all  the 
undisputed  and  indisputable  facts,  it  must  affirm  one  of  two 
opposite  theses  :  Jesus  was  a  deified  man,  or  The  Jesus  was 
a  humanised  God.  There  is  no  tertiiim  quid.  One  of  these 
alternatives  is  necessary,  the  other  impossible  ;  one  is  true, 
the  other  is  false.  Hitherto  criticism  has  with  practical 
unanimity  assumed  the  first  alternative,  and  has  lavished  its 
splendid  resources  of  learning  and  acumen  in  the  century-old 
attempt  to  understand  the  New  Testament  and  primitive 
Christianity  from  the  standpoint  of  this  assumption.  It  is 
not  the  writer's  intention  to  review,  or  to  refute,  or  in  any 
way  to  criticise  in  detail,  any  of  these  elaborate  and  ingenious 
essays.  The  notable  fact  is  that,  in  spite  of  all  the  knowledge 
and  the  constructive  talent  called  into  play,  none  of  these 
endeavours   has   been   crowned   with   success,   not   one   has 


*  A  letter  from  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  present  British  philosophy- 
would  indicate  that  the  foregoing  is  stated  too  strongly.  This  scholar  regards 
the  destruction  of  the  \iheva.\  Jesusbz'Id  as  complete,  saying  :  "  On  the  negative 

side  I  am  entirely  at  one  with  you But  I  feel  through  all  your  polemic  the 

presence  of  a  '  neglected  alternative.' "  This  latter  is  the  formula  of  Chalcedon 
— "  very  man  and  very  God."  Against  such  a  view  we  shall  neither  strive  nor 
cry,  nor  let  any  voice  be  heard  in  this  book.  In  another  volume  it  may  be 
otherwise.  According  to  B.  Russell,  learning  "  to  believe  that  the  law  of 
contradiction  is  false  "  is  "  a  feat  which  is  by  no  means  as  difficult  as  it  is 
often  supposed  to  be." 


THE  DILEMMA  7 

commanded  any  general  assent,  not  one  has  established  itself 
for  longer  than  a  short  time  or  in  more  than  a  narrow  circle. 
In  this  connection  the  writer  may  be  allowed  to  quote  from 
his  own  article  on  New  Testament  criticism,  written  in  1904, 
and  published  in  The  Americana  (Encyclopasdia),  1905  : — 

When  so  many  winged  hounds  of  Zeus  thus  find  that  their  quarry 
forever  eludes  them,  the  suggestion  is  inevitable  that  there  is 
something  radically  wrong  in  their  method  of  pursuit,  that  in  some 
way  their  finest  sense  has  betrayed  them.  We  hold  that  the  nature 
of  their  error  is  now  at  length  an  open  secret.  They  have  sought  to 
explain  Christianity  as  an  emanation  from  a  single  individual  human 
focus,  as  the  reaction  upon  history  and  environment  of  a  single 
human  personality  ;  they  have  sought  "  to  understand  Jesus  as  the 
originating  source  of  Christianity."  They  have  failed,  and  they  must 
forever  fail ;  for  no  such  explanation  is  possible,  because  no  such 
origination  was  real.  Over  against  all  such  attempts  we  oppose  the 
fact  that  every  day  comes  to  clearer  and  clearer  light,  that  now 
fliashes  continually  into  evidence  around  the  whole  horizon  of  investi- 
gation ;  the  fact  that  was  perceived  nearly  a  decade  ago,  but  whose 
effective  proclamation  called  for  the  publication  of  a  series  of  prepara- 
tory investigations  ;  the  fact  that  the  genesis  of  Christianity  must  be 
sought  in  the  collective  consciousness  of  the  first  Christian  and 
immediately  pre-Christian  centuries  ;  that  in  the  Syncretism  of  that 
epoch  of  the  amalgamation  of  faiths,  when  all  the  currents  of 
philosophic  and  theosophic  thought  dashed  together  their  waters  in 
the  vast  basin  of  the  Roman  circum-Mediterranean  empire,  was  to  be 
sought  and  found  the  possibility  and  the  actuality  of  a  new  faith  of 
Universal  Humanity  that  should  contain  something  appealing  to  the 
head  and  the  heart  of  all  men,  from  slave  to  emperor,  a  faith  in  which 
there  should  be  no  longer  male  and  female,  Jew  and  Greek,  bond  and 
free,  but  all  should  be  one  by  virtue  of  a  common  Humanity,  of  the 
ageless,  timeless,  spaceless  Son  of  Man.  It  is  as  the  outcome  of  this 
Syncretism,  as  the  final  efflorescence  of  the  Judaeo-Graeco-Roman 
spirit,  of  the  Asiatic  -  European  soul,  that  Christianity  is  wholly 
intelligible  and  infinitely  significant ;  the  notion  that  it  is  an 
individual  Palestinian  product  is  the  Carthago  delenda  of  New 
Testament  criticism. 

12.  Under  such  conditions,  in  view  of  the  notorious  failure 
of  the  thoroughly  tested  hypothesis  of  a  merely  human 
Jesus,  of  a  deified  man,  it  becomes  the  unavoidable  duty  of 
criticism  to  test  with  equal  care  and  thoroughness  the  single 
and  exclusive  alternative,  the  counter  hypothesis  of  a  divine 
Jesus,  of  a  humanised  God.  Nor  should  there  be  brought  to 
this  trial  any  religious  feeling  or  dogmatic  prejudice  ;  neither, 
above  all,   should  it  be  tainted  by  any  odium  theologicum. 


8  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

The  inquiry  should  be  pursued  calmly,  dispassionately,  with 
scientific  caution  and  accuracy,  with  no  appeal  to  passion, 
with  no  resort  to  rhetoric,  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
syllogism  and  the  formula  for  Inverse  Probability,  with  firm 
resolution  to  accept  whatever  conclusions  may  eventually  be 
recommended,  and  with  absolute  confidence  not  only  that  the 
truth  will  ultimately  prevail,  but  that  it  is  also  for  the  highest 
and  holiest  interests  of  humanity  that  it  should  prevail, 
whatever  it  may  be.  We  must,  in  fact,  remember  the  noble 
words  of  Milton  : — 

And  now  the  time  In  special  is,  by  privilege  to  write  and  speak 
what  may  help  to  the  further  discussing  of  matters  in  agitation. 
The  temple  of  Janus,  with  his  two  controversial  faces,  might  now  not 
unsigniticantly  be  set  open.  And  though  all  the  winds  of  doctrine 
were  let  loose  to  play  upon  the  earth,  so  truth  be  in  the  field,  we  do 

injuriously to   misdoubt  her  strength.      Let   her  and   falsehood 

grapple ;  who  ever  knew  truth  put  to  the  worse,  in  a  free  and  open 
encounter  ? 

It  is,  of  course,  superfluous  to  argue  such  self-evident  pro- 
positions ;  and  it  would,  indeed,  seem  almost  equally  super- 
fluous even  to  state  them,  had  not  the  recent  example  of  the 
attacks  on  Professor  Drews,  and  in  less  measure  upon  the 
present  writer,  made  clear  that  there  is  really  great  need  to 
stress  such  sentiments  with  peculiar  emphasis.  On  this 
point  one  need  not  dwell.  The  animus  of  the  polemic 
pamphlets  in  question  is  plain  enough  to  such  as  have  read 
them,  and  to  others  it  were,  perhaps,  better  not  revealed. 

13.  With  the  substance  of  these  booklets  the  present 
writer  is  in  no  great  measure  immediately  concerned.  The 
main  bulk  of  the  refutation  goes  against  the  theories  of  such 
as  Robertson,  Kalthoff,  and  Jensen,  with  whom  the  writer 
has  never  united  forces,  from  whom  he  has  persistently  held 
his  own  thought  independent  and  distinct.  Not  that  he 
might  not  learn  much  from  such  scholars  and  thinkers,  but 
that  he  has  preferred  not  to  poach  on  their  preserves  ;  rather 
to  follow  his  own  paths  at  his  own  gait  and  in  his  own 
manner.  Spartam  tuam  exorna  has  been  his  motto.  Why 
the  critics  in  question  have  so  preferred  to  deal  with  other 
works  rather  than  with  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  is  a  question 
not  without  interest,  but  which  he  presumes  not  to  answer. 
There  is,  however,  a  certain  amount  of  common  ground  which 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PERSONALITY  9 

nearly  every  participant  in  this  controversy  must  traverse. 
It  is  hard  to  avoid  speaking  of  the  Personality  revealed  in  the 
Gospels,  of  the  supposed  witness  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and 
of  the  testimonies  of  profane  writers.  To  these  should  be 
added  the  acute  argument  of  Schmiedel  touching  the  Nine 
Pillars,  which  many  years  ago,  on  its  first  appearance  in  the 
Encyclopcedia  Biblica^  appeared  to  the  writer,  as  it  still 
appears,  to  be  incomparably  the  most  plausible  plea  ever 
made  for  the  liberal  contention.  It  seems  to  have  figured 
far  too  little  in  the  present  controversy,  and  accordingly  no 
small  part  of  this  volume  is  surrendered  to  its  consideration. 

ARGUMENT  FROM  PERSONALITY 

14.  Overshadowing  significance  attaches  in  the  minds  of 
most  to  the  argument  from  the  Evangelical  Personality.  It 
is  this  that  Von  Soden  has  accented  so  forcefully.  It  is  this 
to  which  Harnack  makes  his  appeal.  Closely  allied  there- 
with is  the  thought  that  great  events  of  history  presuppose 
and  imply  great  historical  personalities  ;  hence  it  seems  to  be 
inferred  that  the  origin  of  Christianity  as  the  greatest  of 
historical  events  implies  the  greatest  of  personalities.  A 
strange  paralogism  !  Even  if  we  granted  the  conclusion,  the 
question  would  still  remain.  But  who  was  that  personality? 
Was  it  Paul,  or  Peter,  or  John,  or  Mark,  or  some  Great 
Unknown,  like  the  Fourth  Evangelist?  Or  was  it,  perhaps, 
all  of  these  notable  personalities  working  in  more  or  less 
perfect  accord,  and  producing  a  total  result  of  which  no  one, 
nor  two,  nor  three  might  have  been  capable?  There  seems 
to  be  not  the  slightest  reason  for  doubting  that  the  Proto- 
Christian  period  was  rich  in  personality,  and  in  personalities 
of  a  very  marked  variety.  But  there  has  not  yet  been  pre- 
sented one  iota  of  proof  that  the  Jesus  was  one  of  these 
persons.  In  fact,  he  does  not  stand  at  all  in  line  with  any  of 
them.  Between  Jesus  and  Paul  or  Peter  or  John  even  the 
most  distant  parallel  is  absolutely  unwarranted.  One  might 
just  as  well  align  Jupiter  Stator  with  Fabius  Cunctator. 
Whoever  dreamed  of  worshipping  James  or  John,  of  praying 
to  Peter  as  Lord,  of  casting  out  demons  in  the  name  of  Luke 
the  beloved  physician,  of  preaching  that  Paul  had  died  for 


lo  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

men,  or  that  Stephen  had  risen  from  the  dead,  or  that  Apollos 
had  ascended  into  glory  ?  It  seems  superfluously  manifest 
that  all  of  these  distinguished  personalities,  the  brightness  of 
whose  distinction  we  at  this  distance  may  only  dimly  perceive, 
stand  entirely  out  of  line  with  Jesus,  with  whom  to  compare 
them  would  be  like  comparing  a  planet  with  the  Newtonian 
law  of  gravitation. 

15.  Such  men,  be  it  repeated,  were  in  all  probability  very 
able  and  exceptional  characters.  If  we  judge  them  by  the 
work  they  accomplished,  we  must  surely  admit  they  were 
most  remarkable.  This  notability  is  generally  conceded 
willingly  enough  to  Paul,  but  rather  grudgingly  to  Peter  and 
James  and  John'  and  the  rest — yet  without  any  good  reason. 
The  notion  that  these  latter  were  only  ignorant  Galilean 
fishermen,  who  merely  misunderstood  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
and  very  inadequately  reproduced  them — this  notion  is  itself 
the  gravest  misunderstanding,  for  which  there  is  not  the 
faintest  shadow  of  justification.  The  epistle  that  goes  under 
the  name  of  James  is  a  well-written — indeed,  almost  learned — 
disquisition.  It  contains  allusions  to  matters  astronomical 
and  others  (as  in  i.  17,  iii.  6 — wheel  of  birth — and  elsewhere) 
that  reveal  clearly  a  cultured  intelligence.  The  letter  to  the 
Hebrews  is  plainly  the  work  of  a  highly-trained  intellect  not 
guiltless  of  the  graces  of  literary  expression.  The  Johannines 
proceed  manifestly  from  a  circle  accustomed  to  deep  musings 
on  philosophic  and  theosophic  themes.  The  Petrines  are 
not  ignorant  of  Stoical  doctrine.  Of  the  Evangelists,  Luke 
has  received  even  exaggerated  recognition  at  the  hands  of 
eminent  critics  ;  but  as  a  fervid  and  impassioned  declaimer 
and  rhetorician  he  is  still  notably  inferior  to  Matthew,  while 
Mark  surpasses  all  in  the  rugged  strength  of  his  thought  and 
the  still  depth  of  his  symbolism.  The  fact  is  that  the  New 
Testament  is  a  wonderful  body  of  literature,  and  attests 
unequivocally  a  high  level  of  mental  power  and  artistic  sense 
in  its  authors.  That  the  Greek  is  far  from  classic  signifies 
nothing,  save  that  the  milieu  of  its  composition  was  half-Jew, 


*  Of  course,  we  attach  no  weight  to  these  or  to  any  other  mere  names.  It 
is  enough  that  among-  the  Proto-Christians  there  were  many  men  who  thought 
great  thoughts,  wrote  great  writings,  and  did  great  deeds— call  them  what 
you  will. 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PERSONALITY  ii 

half-Greek  ;  that  much  of  it  was  at  least  thought,  if  not 
originally  written,  in  Aramaic  ;  and  that  the  forms  of  speech 
were  often  loaded  with  ideas  beyond  what  they  were  able  to 
bear. 

i6.  When,  now,  we  pass  beyond  the  apostolic  circle,  we 
still  find  men  that  must  have  possessed  impressive  person- 
alities. Consider  Simon  Magus.  It  is  a  stupendous  blunder 
to  regard  him  as  a  mere  charlatan.  Harnack  speaks  {D,  G., 
I.  233,  n,  i)  appreciatively  of  his  ''attempt  to  create  a 
universal  religion  of  the  Most  High  God."  That  he  belonged 
to  the  primal  Christian  influences  seems  certain.  It  is 
characteristic  of  the  desperation  of  the  ablest  liberal  criticism 
that  Harnack  feels  compelled  to  recognise  an  influence  of 
Jesus  (and  Paul)  on  Simon  Magus  :  "  He  is  really  a  counter- 
part to  Jesus,  whose  activity  can  no  more  have  been  unknown 
to  him  than  was  that  of  Paul."  '*  We  know  that  out-and-out 
new  religious  organisations  were  attempted  in  the  apostolic 
age  in  Samaria,  in  the  production  of  which,  in  all  likelihood, 
the  tradition  and  proclamation  of  Jesus  had  already  exerted 
influence"  (p.  233).  A  strange  example  of  prolepsis. 
According  to  Acts  viii.  5-13,  Simon  was  one  of  the  very 
first  converts  outside  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  first  year  after  the 
resurrection,  and  had  already,  for  a  ''  long  time  "  previous, 
held  sway  in  Samaria.  He  was  also  reputed  to  be  the  father 
of  heresy  ;  and,  since  it  was  the  habit  and  the  interest  of  the 
Christians  never  to  antedate,  but  rather  to  postdate,  all 
heresies,  we  may  be  sure  that  the  date  given  in  Acts  is  at 
least  not  too  early,  and  that  Simon's  teaching  was  con- 
siderably pre-Christian.  Notice  now  that  he  is  represented 
as  converted  at  the  first  preaching  of  Philip  in  Samaria,  and 
as  attaching  himself  devotedly  to  Philip.  The  story  of  his 
simony  is,  on  its  face,  a  mere  invention,  like  other  stories 
of  the  heresiographers.  The  fragments  preserved  from  the 
Apophasis  that  went  under  his  name  indicate  a  deep  thinker, 
a  kind  of  pre-Hegelian  Hegel,  and  lead  us  to  believe  that  we 
behold  in  them  the  ruins  of  a  daring  and  high-aiming  religious 
cosmogony.  Likewise  the  sentiments  attributed  to  the  most 
ancient  Naassenes  testify  indubitably  to  bold  and  compre- 
hensive theosophic  speculation.  If  the  systems  of  these 
primitive  Gnostics  had  reached  us  in  their  entirety,  and  not 


12  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

merely  in  detached  bits  transmitted  and  perhaps  often  dis- 
figured by  hostile  hands,  it  seems  in  the  last  degree  probable 
that  we  should  be  compelled  to  yield  them  a  large  tribute  of 
respect  as  earnest  religionists  and  no  mean  thinkers. 

17.  When,  now,  we  descend  to  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century,  we  are  confronted  by  three  names  of  veritable  heroes 
of  philosophic-religious  speculation — Basilides,  Valentinus, 
Marcion.  It  signifies  nothing  that  they  were  all  heretics. 
Such,  too,  were  Bruno  and  Huss  and  Luther  and  Melanchthon 
and  Zwingli  and  Calvin  and  Knox,  and  who  knows  how 
many  others?  Such,  too,  at  least  in  a  measure,  was  the 
oceanic  Origen.  Of  the  pre-eminence  of  these  three,  not  to 
mention  many  others  of  whom  we  know,  there  can  be  no 
question.  With  regard  to  the  second,  it  is  enough  to  read 
the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  and  the  judicious  appreciation 
by  Harnack.  The  overshadowing  pre-eminence  of  Marcion 
is  even  more  incontestable.  On  the  whole,  he  seems  to  have 
been  the  greatest  religious  figure  of  that  era.  Apparently, 
however,  both  he  and  Valentinus  were  excelled  in  profundity 
of  thought  by  Basilides,  of  whom  we  hear  hardly  so  much, 
most  likely  because  the  depths  of  his  thinking  were  less 
accessible  to  the  search  of  the  heresy-hunters,  and  because  he 
made  less  appeal  to  the  general  intelligence.  But  it  seems 
impossible  to  read  carefully  the  few  fragments  that  remain  of 
his  numerous  works  without  feeling  oneself  in  the  presence 
of  something  very  like  philosophic-religious  genius.  It  is 
a  well-known  merit  of  Harnack's  Dogmengeschichte  that  it 
recognises  unequivocally  the  intellectual  superiority  of  the 
Gnostics  and  their  decisive  significance  for  scientific  theology  : 
"  It  is  beyond  doubt  that  theologic  literature  had  its  origin 
among  the  Gnostics  "  {p.c.  p.  230,  n.  i).  The  general  result, 
then,  is  that,  in  spite  of  the  deplorably  fragmentary  state  of 
the  surviving  evidence,  and  in  spite  of  the  painful  misrepre- 
sentation that  meets  us  at  every  turn,  it  is  impossible  not  to 
recognise  the  two  centuries  50  A.C.-150P.C.  as  extraordinarily 
prolific  in  commanding  religious  personalities.  There  seems, 
indeed,  to  have  been  almost  a  plethora  of  theosophic  genius. 
Nor  is  there  any  compelling  reason  why  we  should  set  the 
year  50  A.c.  as  an  upper  limit.  We  might  very  well  throw 
this  limit  back  one  hundred  years  or  more,  into  Maccabean 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PERSONALITY  13 

times.  Information  is,  indeed,  wanting  ;  but  there  is  no 
improbability  in  such  dating".  Moreover,  there  is  no  reason 
for  supposing  that  those  early  thinkers — the  Proto-Naassenes, 
for  example — were  in  any  way  inferior  to  their  successors  and 
expounders,  such  as  Paul,  Peter  and  John,  Simon,  Menander, 
Basilides,  Valentinus,  Marcion,  and  the  rest.  In  fact,  the 
analogies  of  history  might  lead  us  to  believe  they  surpassed 
all  their  followers,  if  not  in  elaboration  of  detail,  yet  at  least 
in  elemental  strength  and  in  boldness  of  outline.  There 
may  very  well  have  been  some  such  succession  as  that  of 
^schylus,  Sophocles,  Euripides,  or  of  Socrates,  Plato, 
Aristotle.  To  the  writer's  mind,  the  Old-Christian  literature, 
in  particular  the  New  Testament,  suggests  irresistibly  vast 
sunken  continents  of  thought,  over  which  the  waves  of  two 
thousand  years  of  oblivion  are  rolling,  with  here  and  there 
grey  or  green  island  peaks  emerging,  a  wondrous  archi- 
pelago. 

Herewith,  then,   the  contention  of  Haupt  and   Harnack 
and   their   peers,    that   the   new   school    neglects   the   great 
historical  factor  of  personality,  seems  to  be  completely  refuted.  ^ 
We  do  not  overlook  nor  omit  this  factor ;  on  the  contrary^ 
we  insert  it  in  far  higher  potency  than  do  our  opponents.       ' 

18.  But  someone  will  say  that  we  employ  many  person- 
alities, whereas  there  is  need  of  a  single  all-controlling 
personality.  This  latter  proposition  we  deny  m  toto  and 
with  all  emphasis ;  and  for  various  reasons,  each  in  itself 
sufficient.  It  is  not  true  that  the  great  critical  events  and 
movements  of  history  have  been  always  or  even  generally 
determined  by  single  personalities ;  it  has  often  happened 
that  there  has  been  no  one  all-dominating  individuality,  but 
that  several  or  even  many  have  conspired  in  the  expression 
of  some  one  over-mastering  ideal.  Take  the  case  of  the 
French  Revolution.  How  many  leading  spirits,  all  measur- 
ing up  nearly  to  the  same  line,  not  one  shooting  up  into  any 
very  great  elevation  either  absolutely  or  relatively  !  Not 
until  the  Revolution  was  accomplished  and  had  ceased 
wholly  to  move  forward  did  the  wonderful  Corsican  appear 
and  begin  to  roll  it  backward. 

19.  Here  in  the  New  World  we  celebrate  two  events  as  of 
world-historical  importance  :  the  Revolution  of  1776  and  the 


14  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

Civil  War  of  1861-64.  In  neither  of  these  does  any  single 
personality  tower  up  in  overshadowing  proportions.  Wash- 
ington and  Lincoln  were  officially  most  conspicuous,  and  by 
some  are  regarded  as  pre-eminent ;  but  at  most  they  were 
only  slightly  taller  than  numbers  of  their  peers.  Consider 
the  Renaissance.  What  a  long  line  of  giants  march  in  the 
first  rank  !  Possibly  Leonardo  is  the  most  perfect  in  his 
proportions  ;  but  no  one  can  claim  for  him  that  he  was  the 
ruling  spirit.  Consider  even  the  case  of  the  great  Reforma- 
tion. Luther  towers  herein  conspicuous  ;  but  he  was  by  no 
means  without  precursors,  by  no  means  without  peers. 
Indeed,  his  personality  would  seem  to  have  been  in  many  ways 
over-estimated.     This  thought  need  not  be  pursued  further. 

20.  Of  course,  it  is  not  for  an  instant  denied  that  great 
single  personalities  may  lie  behind  and  initiate  great  world- 
historical  movements,  though  they  can  never  do  this  except 
where  the  springs  are  already  sety  the  train  laid,  and  all  the 
necessary  pre-conditions  already  arranged  in  the  antecedent 
actually  existing  historical  circumstances  of  the  case  ;  but 
where  such  pre-arrangement  is  already  complete,  then  it  is 
not  true  that  a  single  determinate  personality  is  either 
always  necessary  or  even  generally  actually  present.  The 
initiative  may  and  often  does  actually  proceed  not  from  one 
but  from  many  nearly  co-equal  individualities. 

21.  Thia  is  not  nearly  all,  however.  In  the  case  actually 
under  consideration  there  is  a  high  antecedent  probability 
that  it  must  have  proceeded  not  from  one,  but  from  ma7iy. 
For  if  it  had  proceeded  from  one  single  personality  even  half 
so  dominant  as  the  prevailing  theory  supposes  Jesus  to  have 
been,  then  the  movement  would  have  had  some  very  distinct 
and  unmistakable  unity,  some  entirely  unambiguous  imprint 
of  this  one  individuality.  Of  course,  it  is  true  that  great 
teachers  have  been  misunderstood  in  many  minor  details. 
There  are  even  now  several  theories  as  to  the  central  aim  of 
the  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  Men  may  perhaps  wrangle 
for  ever  over  the  interpretation  of  Plato  or  of  Spinoza.  But 
such  cases  are  not  nearly  parallel  to  the  one  in  hand.  These 
strifes  concern  matters  of  detail  or  else  of  extreme  subtleties 
of  thought,  where  either  language  was  inadequate  to  exact 
expression,  or  else  the  thinker  had  not  himself  come  clearly 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PERSONALITY  15 

into  the  light,  or  perhaps  in  the  course  of  his  own  intellectual 
development  had  fallen  into  some  inconsistencies  such  as 
naturally  attend  upon  growth.  None  of  these  explanations 
will  fit  the  case  in  hand.  In  a  ministry  that  must  have 
lasted  at  most  only  two  or  three  years  there  could  not  have 
been  any  notable  incongruences  due  to  gradual  evolution. 
The  matters  were  not  metaphysical  subtleties  hard  to  think, 
harder  to  express,  easy  to  misstate  and  misapprehend. 
Nevertheless,  the  great  patent  obtrusive  fact  is  that  by 
supposition  at  least  150  years  of  unintermittent  strife  followed 
upon  the  preaching  of  this  single  personality.  From  the 
very  start  he  would  seem  to  have  been  understood  or  mis- 
understood in  an  endless  variety  of  ways.  Nor  is  it  possible 
to  detect  in  his  supposed  teaching  any  bond  of  individuality, 
any  stamp  of  a  single  incomparable  personality.  The 
impressive  fact,  admitted  even  by  the  liberal  critics  them- 
selves, is  that  Christianity  is  pre-eminently  not  single- 
natured,  but  is  above  all  else  syncretic.  There  is,  indeed,  a 
clear  and  unmistakable  thread  of  unity  running  through  the 
whole  doctrine,  the  whole  propaganda,  which  has  in  fact 
held  Christendom  together  in  a  kind  of  unity  from  that  day 
to  this — namely,  the  worship  of  Jesus  as  God,  the  doctrine 
that  Jesus  was  Lord^  hi  some  way  one  with  Deity.  Cut  this 
cord  of  union,  and  the  whole  body  of  doctrine  unravels  and 
falls  to  pieces,  the  whole  distinctive  structure  of  our  religion 
fades  away  and  vanishes.  If  Jesus  be  mere  man,  then  he  is 
only  one  of  many  ;  he  takes  his  position  side  by  side  with 
Socrates,  Mohammed,  and  others,  and  it  may  be  that  the 
only  reason  he  seems  so  grand  and  so  beautiful  is  because 
he  looms  upon  us  from  the  horizon  of  history  :  his  form  may 
be  enlarged  and  his  features  softened  by  the  mist  and  the 
distance.  That  a  system  of  world-religion  should  have  as 
its  permanent  distinguishing  mark  the  pre-eminence  accorded 
to  any  mere  man  seems  to  be  infinitely  preposterous. 

22.  This,  however,  is  not  the  main  point  in  mind,  which 
is  that  this  dogma,  which  alone  imparts  essential  and  age- 
lasting  unity  to  the  Christian  teaching,  is  precisely  the 
dogma  that  the  critics  themselves  cannot  attribute  to  this 
unique  teacher.  If  Jesus  were  a  mere  man,  we  cannot  think 
of  him  as  himself  believing  that  he  was  God  or  Lord,  nor  of 


i6  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

his  teaching  the  same  to  his  disciples.  This  dogma,  then, 
must  have  been  a  later  accretion  to  his  original  doctrine. 
But  this  doctrine,  this  worship  of  the  Jesus  as  divine,  is  the 
one  infrangible  bond  of  unity  in  the  countless  variety  of 
creeds  of  Christendom.  And  this,  we  repeat,  is  precisely 
what  could  not  have  proceeded  from  this  one  Personality  ! 

23.  Here,  then,  we  are  met  by  a  double  question  :  How 
shall  we  account  for  this  golden  thread  of  union  that  has 
held  together  for  so  many  centuries  the  complex  web  of 
Christendom  ?  How  shall  we  account  for  the  infinite  and 
immediate  lack  of  unity  (this  thread  excepted)  if  the  teaching 
indeed  proceeded  from  a  single  incomparable  teacher? 

24.  Hereto  the  answers  given  by  the  new  theory  are 
exceedingly  simple  and  entirely  satisfactory,  while  no  answer 
ever  has  been  given,  and  apparently  none  ever  can  be  given, 
by  the  older  theory,  which  we  here  reject.  We  affirm,  namely, 
that  the  worship  of  the  One  God  under  the  name,  aspect,  or 
person  of  the  Jesus,  the  Saviour,  was  the  primitive  and 
indefectible  essence  of  the  primitive  preaching  and  propa- 
ganda. Infinitely  though  they  may  have  varied  from  place 
to  place  and  from  time  to  time  in  various  particulars,  the 
original  secret  societies  were  united  in  one  point — namely,  the 
worship  of  the  One  God  under  this  name  or  some  nearly 
equivalent  name  and  aspect.  In  fact,  the  terms  "The 
Nasaree "  and  "  The  Saviour "  ^  seem  to  have  vied  at  first 
with  "The  Jesus";  and  there  may  very  well  have  been — 
and  admittedly  were — other  terms,  such  as  "  Barnasha," 
"Baradam,"  "Son  of  Man,"  "Mighty  Man,"  "Man  from 
Heaven,"  "Second  Adam,"  and  the  like,  that  were  preferred 
here  and  there.  This  early  multiplicity  of  designations 
testifies  eloquently  to  the  primitive  wide-rootedness  of  the 
cult,  and  is  scarcely  at  all  explicable  in  terms  of  the  prevailing 
hypothesis.  But  there  were  abundant  reasons  why  the  name 
Jesus  should  be  the  Aaron's  rod  to  swallow  up  all  other 
designations.  Its  meaning,  which  was  felt  to  be  Saviour, 
was  grand,  comforting,  uplifting.  The  notion  of  the 
World  -  Saviour  thrust  its  roots  into  the  loam  of  the 
remotest  antiquity ;  it  made  powerful  appeal  to  the  universal 

*  6  Nafapttios,  6  Swr^p. 


ARGUMENT  PROM  PERSONALITY  i^ 

consciousness.     A  Saviour  was  then  and  there,  all  around  the 
Mediterranean, 

The  pillar  of  a  people's  hope, 

The  centre  of  a  world's  desire. 

On  this  point  one  need  not  dwell,  for  the  reader  may  be 
supposed  to  be  familiar  with  the  relative  writings  of  Soltau  and 
others,  and  especially  with  the  compendious  treatment  of 
Lietzmann  in  his  Der  Weltheiland  and  of  Hoyer  in  his 
Heilslehre. 

25.  The  word  Jesus  itself  also  made  special  appeal  to  the 
Jewish  consciousness  ;  for  it  was  practically  identical  with 
their  own  Jeshua',  now  understood  by  most  to  mean  strictly 
Jah-help,  but  easily  confounded  with  a  similar  form  J'shu'ah, 
meaning  Deliverance^  Saviour,  Witness ^  Matthew  i,  21. 
Moreover,  the  initial  letter  J,  so  often  representing  Jah  in 
Hebrew  words,  must  have  powerfully  suggested  Jehovah  to 
the  Jewish  consciousness.  Hardly  less  direct  was  the  appeal 
to  the  Greek  consciousness.  The  word  'lao/xat  means  I  heal; 
the  future  forms  (Ionic  and  Epic)  are  'Irifr-ofxai,  Iria-i;),  etc. 
The  word  "Irjcr-tc  (genitive  'Iria-uog)  means  healings  and 
'laa-w  (genitive  Tacr-ovc)  was  goddess  of  health  and  healing. 
The  name  Jusus  i^\^(J-ovq)  must  then  have  suggested  healing 
to  the  Greek  mind  fully  as  forcibly  as  Saviour  suggests 
saving  to  the  English.  Even  this  was  not  all,  however.  The 
name  was  closely  connected  in  form  and  sound  with  the 
divine  name  lAO,  regarded  in  early  Gnostic  circles  with 
peculiar  reverence.  It  is  not  necessary  to  decide  whether 
this  latter  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  equivalent  of  the  tetra- 
gram  JHVH^  or  as  meaning  Jah-Alpha-Omega  (Rev.  i,  8  ; 
xxi,  6 ;  xxii,  13 ;  cf.  Is.  xliv,  6).  It  is  enough  that  in 
Hellenistic  early  theosophic  circles  the  name  was,  in  approved 
use,  a  favourite  designation  of  deity.  In  view  of  all  these 
facts,  the  triumph  of  the  name  Jesus  seems  entirely  natural. 

26.  On  the  other  hand,  the  notable,  and  even  unparalleled, 
diversity  of  early  Christian  doctrine  seems  equally  natural, 
and,  in  fact,  almost  inevitable,  in  accord  with  the  new  theory 
which  is  here  advocated.  If  you  ask  why  there  were  so  many 
shades  and  types  of  teaching,  the  answer  is,  because  there 
were  so  many  types  of  mind  active  over  so  wide  a  region  of 
country.     The  "  new  doctrine  "  was  necessarily  vague  in  its 


i8  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

outlines,  just  as  the  preaching  in  Acts  is  vague.  As  we  shall 
see,  it  was  essentially  a  protest  and  insurrection  of  the 
monotheistic  against  the  polytheistic  consciousness ;  but  this 
protest  and  insurrection  could,  and  did,  take  many  forms, 
while  always  substituting  for  the  multiplicity  of  heathen  gods 
the  one  healing,  saving,  and  protecting  God,  the  Jesus. 

27.  This  diversity  of  detail,  held  together  in  unity  by  the 
one  all-dominating  dogma  of  the  new  deity,  the  Jesus,  the 
Christ,  is  and  must  be  explained  in  similar  fashion  even  by 
the  adherents  of  the  old  hypothesis ;  the  only  difference  is 
that  their  explanation  is  just  as  forced  and  artificial  as  ours  is 
ready  and  natural.  For  no  man  can  fail  to  recognise  the  wide 
interval  between  Mark  and  John,  between  James  and 
Hebrews,  between  Paul  and  the  Apocalyptist.  How  shall 
we  explain  them?  The  answer  must  be  sought  in  the  diverse 
individualities  of  the  men  concerned.  There  is  precisely 
where  we  seek  it  and  find  it,  and  there  is  nothing  to  make 
this  answer  in  any  way  hard  to  understand  ;  on  the  contrary, 
the  whole  phenomenon  appears  natural  and  inevitable  in  the 
light  of  that  other  important  fact — the  propaganda  did  not 
issue  exclusively  from  Jerusalem^  but  almost  simultaneously 
from  a  number  of  foci,  both  geographically  and  culturally 
distinct,  and  imparting  each  its  own  peculiar  local  colour. 
Here,  then,  there  seems  to  be  nothing  in  simplicity  and 
naturalness  left  to  be  desired. 

28.  Altogether  different  is  the  case  with  the  elder  theory 
of  the  one  all-dominating,  all-originating  Personality.  Here, 
again,  it  must  be  held  that  the  discrepancies  and  contradic- 
tions of  the  New  Testament  writings  are  due  to  the  diverse 
individualities  of  the  writers  ;  but  where,  then,  do  we  find 
place  left  for  the  one  overruling  character?  This  question  it 
is  absolutely  impossible  for  the  critics  to  answer  ;  this  obstacle 
they  can  never  overcome.  By  no  artifice  can  they  ever  make 
clear  how  the  same  individuality  could  have  been  reflected  so 
notably  diversely  as  in  Mark  and  John,  for  instance  ;  these 
two  stereoscopic  views  will  never  fuse  into  one.  Hence  it 
has  long  since  become  the  fashion  to  reject  the  latter  picture 
entirely,  and  depend  solely  on  the  former  ;  and  of  this,  to  pick 
out  a  few  features,  reject  all  the  rest,  and  then  fill  in  according 
to  the  caprice  of  the  critic  himself.    Such  a  method  condemns 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PERSONALITY 


19 


itself  from  the  very  outset ;  it  is  irredeemably  arbitrary  and 
capricious.  But  even  if  it  were  allowed  to  succeed  in  dealing 
with  the  Gospels,  it  would  confront  even  graver  and  com- 
plexer  difficulties  on  drawing  the  other  Scriptures  into  the 
circle  of  consideration.  The  problem  of  reducing  the  Acts, 
the  Paulines,  the  Apocalypse,  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and 
Hebrews  to  the  measure  of  the  Gospels  would  still  remain, 
as  it  does  now  remain,  utterly  insoluble.  All  of  these  are  a 
unit  in  teaching  the  deity  of  the  Jesus,  but  in  nothing  else. 
They  are  practically  devoid  of  all  reference  to  any  human 
personality  whatever  bearing  that  name.  By  no  stretch  of 
the  scientific  or  critical  imagination  can  we  discover  in  the 
minds  of  any  of  these  authors  any  dominance  or  controlling 
memory  of  the  life,  teaching,  example,  or  influence,  in  any 
manner  or  measure,  of  a  single  human  personality,  the  Jesus. 

29.  Here,  then,  the  prevalent  theory  is  forced  to  face  a 
contradiction  that  must  annul  it  in  the  minds  of  unbiassed 
reasoners.  On  the  one  hand  it  assumes  a  personality  so 
overwhelming,  so  unexampled,  so  inconceivably  grand, 
splendid,  beautiful,  attractive,  and  ineffaceably  impressive 
that  with  one  accord  a  group  of  disciples,  after  a  brief  season 
of  companionship  followed  by  a  death  between  malefactors 
on  the  cross,  are  so  possessed  with  memories  of  this  friend 
and  teacher  that  they  have  multiplied  visions  of  him  as  risen 
from  the  dead  and  ascended  into  glory  and  seated  on  the 
right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high.  These  visions  they 
accept  as  ocular  and  even  tangible  facts ;  they  draw  the 
immediate  inference  that  the  man  they  knew  so  well  in  all 
the  aspects  of  humanity  less  than  two  months  before,  and 
whom  they  laid  lovingly  in  the  tomb,  was  really  risen  there- 
from, had  overcome  all  the  powers  of  death  and  the  grave, 
was  really  reigning  on  high  in  heaven,  was  really  God  and 
Lord,  henceforth  to  be  worshipped  as  the  Ruler  of  the 
Universe. 

30.  Now,  of  itself,  all  this  is  absolutely  unexampled.  No 
parallel  can  be  found  in  all  the  hoary  registers  of  time.  That 
rational  men  should  do  this  or  anything  like  this,  and  by 
their  preaching  should  convert  a  whole  highly  civilised 
Roman  Empire  to  acceptance  of  such  a  farrago  of  extrava- 
gances, would  itself  be  a  miracle  beyond  all  comparison  ;  nor 


20  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

need  anyone  that  accepts  this  theory  hesitate  for  an  instant 
at  any  wonder  of  the  New  Testament :  he  need  not  strain 
out  the  gnat  after  swallowing  the  camel.  For  his  own  part, 
the  writer  tried  many  years,  for  at  least  a  score,  with  all  the 
help  that  could  be  found  in  the  pages  of  the  most  consummate 
critics,  from  Baur  to  Wrede,  from  Ewald  to  Wellhausen, 
from  Renan  to  Schmiedel,  to  make  this  theory  in  some  way 
or  degree  acceptable  to  the  understanding,  but  only  with  the 
result  of  total  failure.  He  had  indeed  written  many  hundred 
pages  of  Pauline  interpretation,  striving  with  all  the  powers 
of  exegesis  to  render  this  theory  intelligible  ;  but,  in  spite  of 
all  and  every  effort,  the  inexpugnable  absurdity  remained  and 
mocked  with  increasing  and  more  unmistakable  derision. 
Only  then  it  was  that  he  renounced  finally  the  task  foolishly 
begun,  seeing  that  it  had  already  so  successfully  defied  the 
unsurpassed  logical  energies  of  Holsten. 

31.  Even  this,  however,  does  not  state  the  case  in  its 
wholeness.  Not  only  must  this  personality  have  produced 
an  impression  on  the  disciples  entirely  without  parallel  in 
its  intensity,  depth,  and  transformative  energy  ;  not  only 
must  it,  mirabile  dictu^  have  hallucinated  them,  turned  them 
one  and  all  into  missionaries  and  obsessed  them  for  all  their 
following  lives  with  the  wildest  beliefs  imaginable  ;  not  only 
must  it  have  wrought  these  incredible  and  impossible  effects 
on  the  associates  of  a  year  ;  but,  mirahilius  dictu,  it  must 
have  worked  even  more  astoundingly  on  an  intellect  and 
character  of  the  highest  order,  with  whom  it  never  came  into 
contact  at  all — who,  in  fact,  seems  to  have  known  nothing 
of  it  whatever  unless  by  some  casual  hearsay.  For  Paul  was 
such  an  intellect  and  character,  and  the  accepted  fact  is  that 
he  preached  the  Jesus  with  energy,  with  enthusiasm,  with 
consecration,  with  success  unequalled  by  any  of  the  alleged 
personal  disciples.  Yet,  admittedly,  he  was  not  a  personal 
disciple  ;  he  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  persecutor.  Here, 
then,  is  actio  in  distans,  and  in  the  third  degree,  more  intense 
than  any  immediate  working.  There  is  here  not  the  least 
hook  on  which  to  hang  any  shred  of  personal  influence.  I 
yield  to  no  man  in  admiration  of  the  deep-piercing  acumen 
of  Holsten  :  he  possessed  an  extraordinary  logical  faculty, 
the  tenth  part  of  which  imparted  to  many  a  scholar  might 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PERSONALITY  21 

make  him  a  thinker;  and  yet  one  cannot  conceal  from  oneself 
the  patent  fact  that  all  his  subtleties  are  vain  in  presence  of 
the  inherent  and  eternal  absurdity  of  his  central  thesis.  He 
has  failed,  and  where  he  has  failed  it  is  not  likely  that  anyone 
will  ever  succeed.  I  hold,  then,  that  the  fact  of  Paulinism 
and  the  fact  of  Paul  must  remain  for  ever  an  insoluble  enigma 
according  to  the  prevalent  theory.  It  is  impossible  to  under- 
stand the  conversion,  the  activity,  and  the  doctrine  of  Paul 
in  terms  of  the  human  personality  of  the  Jesus. 

32.  But  still  there  is  more  to  follow.  Not  only  must  this 
supposed  personality  have  been  hallucinating  in  its  imme- 
diate action,  and  still  more  hallucinating  in  its  remote  action 
on  such  as  never  came  under  its  influence ;  but,  mira- 
bilissimum  dictu,  it  must  have  left  practically  no  impression 
at  all  precisely  where  its  impression  was  left  the  deepest. 
Here  is  the  everlasting  contradiction  already  mentioned  or 
suggested.  For  the  confounding  fact  is  that  the  very  men 
whom  this  Person  is  supposed  to  have  infatuated  beyond  all 
example  and  all  belief  have,  in  their  preaching  and  in  their 
writings,  so  far  as  these  are  delivered  and  known  to  us, 
virtually  nothing  to  tell  us  of  the  personality  by  which  they 
are  ex  hypothesi  obsessed.  Not,  indeed,  that  they  make  no 
mention  of  the  Jesus.  On  the  contrary,  their  discourse 
hinges  on  this  mighty  concept.  But  they  know  virtually 
nothing  of  his  alleged  human  character.  Uniformly  they 
present  us  this  Jesus  as  a  divinity,  as  a  dogma,  never  as  a 
life.  Where  in  Acts,  or  the  Epistles,  or  the  Apocalypse  are 
we  permitted  to  catch  even  a  faint  glimpse  of  Jesus  as  a  man? 
By  supposition  the  minds  of  the  speakers  and  writers  must 
have  been  crowded  to  overflowing  with  anecdotes  and 
incidents  and  sayings  of  him  who  had  possessed  their  minds 
as  never  have  minds  been  possessed  before  or  since.  Jesus 
must  have  been  with  them  a  fixed  idea,  a  veritable  mono- 
mania. Not  otherwise  can  we  understand  their  instant 
deification  and  exaltation  of  him  to  the  throne  of  the  universe. 
Surely,  then,  their  thoughts  would  have  flowed  in  the  channel 
carved  out  by  their  intercourse  with  him  ;  their  memories 
would  have  been  laden  with  the  priceless  experiences  of 
Galilee  and  Jerusalem.  Reminiscence  on  reminiscence  would 
have  welled  up  incessantly  and  formed  the  burden  of  their 


22  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

speech.     There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion,  unless  we 
invert  all  the  known  laws  of  psychology. 

33.  But  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case?  What  do  we 
meet  with  in  reading  these  metevangelic  scriptures  ?  A 
virtually  absolute  dearth  of  all  that  we  should  expect  to  be 
present  in  overflowing  abundance  !  Scarcely  a  single  incident 
or  saying,  and  absolutely  not  the  faintest  indication  of  human 
character  whatever  !^  We  are  indeed  assured  that  God  sent 
his  Son  into  the  world,  that  he  was  born  of  woman,  born 
under  the  law,  of  seed  of  David  according  to  flesh,  declared 
as  Son  of  God  with  power  according  to  spirit  of  holiness 
from  resurrection  of  the  dead  (whatever  such  words  may 
mean) ;  that  he  was  crucified,  dead,  buried,  raised  again, 
received  up  into  heaven.  Or,  as  the  most  ancient  formula 
puts  it  (i  Tim.  iii,  16)  : — 

Confessedly  mighty  is  the  mystery  of  godliness — 
Who  was  manifested  in  flesh,      Was  justified  in  Spirit, 
Appeared  to  angels,  Was  preached  among  Gentiles, 

Was  believed  on  in  the  world.     Was  received  up  in  glory. 

34.  We  submit  it  to  any  fair-minded  person  :  Is  this  the 
way  that  one  talks  of  an  intimate  personal  friend,  of  a  sweet, 
noble,  incomparable  character,  of  a  wise,  loving,  and  bene- 
ficent teacher,  of  a  life  full  of  deeds  of  kindness,  gentleness, 
self-sacrifice?  Or  is  it  said  naturally  and  inevitably  of  an 
unearthly  Being,  of  a  Deity,  an  object  of  worship  and 
adoration,  but  not  of  memory,  not  of  personal  acquaintance, 
nor  of  human  affection  ? 

35.  To  be  sure,  we  read  that  **  he  of  Nazareth  traversed 
benefitting  and  healing  those  oppressed  of  demons  "  ;  and  we 
also  read  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  these 
passages  are  discussed  minutely  in  their  proper  place  in 
this  volume.  Both  are  late  accessions  to  the  text,  and 
seem  only  to  confirm,  and  not  to  shake,  the  general  tenor  of 
the  testimony  of  these  Scriptures.  But  even  if  such  were  not 
the  case,  even  if  we  could  find  no  reason  for  otherwise 
interpreting  such  isolated  scraps  of  evidence,  it  would  still 
not    affect    the    general    logical    situation.     For   what    the 


^  It  was  with  this  thought  that  the  writer   opened  the  campaign  against 
the  liberal  theology  in  an  article  in  The  Outlook^  New  York,  November  17,  1900. 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PERSONALITY  23 

prevalent  hypothesis  must  demand  imperatively  is  not  that 
there  should  be  here  and  there  at  wide  intervals,  like  oases  in 
a  desert,  two  or  three,  or  half-a-dozen,  more  or  less  obscure 
references  to  an  historical  life  of  the  Jesus  ;  nay,  but  that  the 
apostolic  and  immediately  post-apostolic  literature  should 
everywhere  blossom  like  the  rose  with  this  life  and  this 
human  character.  If  such  were  the  case,  then  we  might 
affirm  with  some  degree  of  confidence  that  the  character  in 
question  must  have  been  historical,  in  order  to  furnish  the 
basis  for  such  allusions  and  reminiscences.  But  such  is  as 
far  as  possible  from  being  the  case.  It  is  the  general  tenor  of 
these  scriptures  that  must  decide,  and  as  to  this  there  cannot 
be  the  slightest  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  unbiassed.  This 
general  tenor  gives  great  dogmatic  value  to  the  Death  of 
Jesus  as  a  God^  but  does  not  recognise  at  all  the  Life  of  Jesus 
as  a  Man.  .  The  very  few  exceptions  are  trivial,  and  only 
apparent;  but  even  if  they  were  not  trivial,  and  not  merely 
apparent,  it  would  still  not  matter — they  could  not  weigh 
against  the  utterly  unequivocal  general  tenor.  Many  more 
important  isolated  statements  may  have  been,  and  confessedly 
have  actually  been,  interpolated  into  the  text,  no  one  knows 
when  or  how,  but  the  general  tenor  is  unmistakable  and 
determinative.  The  general  tenor  cannot  have  been  inter- 
polated or  corrupted,^ 

36.  In  view  of  the  extreme  importance  of  this  argument, 
it  may  be  well  to  state  it  compactly  as  a  7nodus  tollens :  If  the 
Jesus  of  the  New  Testament  had  been  a  human  personality 
who  had  so  profoundly  impressed  his  companions  during  his 
life  that  they  became  hallucinated  immediately  after  his  death, 
and  successfully  preached  him  as  risen  from  the  dead  and 
reigning  as  supreme  God  in  heaven,  then  such  an  astounding 
personality  would  have  possessed  the  minds  and  hearts,  the 
imagination  and  the  memory,  of  these  disciples,  and  their 

*  Recently  an  acute  lawyer,  a  master  of  the  theory  of  evidence,  in  speaking- 
with  the  writer  on  this  g-eneral  subject,  remarked  with  much  emphasis:  "A 
lawyer  g-oes  entirely  according-  to  the  general  spirit,  scope,  and  intent  of  a 
document ;  he  cares  nothing  for  special  isolated  phrases  and  sentences.  They 
may  have  gotten  in  there  in  a  hundred  ways,  through  carelessness  of  thought 
or  expression.  The  law  overrides  all  such,  and  goes  straight  for  the  general 
purport."  This  statement  may  be  rather  overstrong,  but  in  the  main  it  seems 
to  be  correct.  The  lawyer  in  question  made  no  reference  to  the  matter  here 
debated,  and  has  no  known  sympathy  with  the  writer's  views. 


24  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

preaching  and  writings  would  have  abounded  in  recollections 
of  that  wondrous  life  and  character,  in  allusions  to  his  words 
and  deeds  and  in  appeals  to  his  authority.  But  this  conse- 
quent is  utterly  false  in  the  widest  manner  and  in  the  highest 
degree  ;  on  the  contrary,  its  complete  opposite  is  true. 
Therefore  the  antecedent  is  false.  Here  we  have  made  the 
sharpest  issue  possible,  and  we  urgently  invite  the  critics  to 
try  their  teeth  on  this  syllogism. 

37.  The  only  possible  way  of  escape  from  this  conclusion, 
which  would  seem  to  be  the  end  of  controversy,  would  appear 
to  lie  open  in  denying  that  we  have  any  preaching  or  writing 
of  these  friends  and  companions  of  the  Jesus.  But  even  this 
denial  will  not  in  the  least  avail.  Undoubtedly  we  have  some 
reported  preachments,  and  we  have  some  writings.  Whether 
these  proceed  immediately  from  the  first  disciples  or  only 
mediately  through  the  means  of  disciples  of  disciples  matters 
not.  If  the  preaching,  the  writing,  and,  above  all,  the 
conversation  of  the  primitive  disciples  abounded  in  matter 
taken  from  the  life  of  the  Jesus — as  they  would  have  done, 
according  to  the  current  critical  theory ;  if  the  human 
personality  of  the  Jesus  dominated  the  first  apostolic  genera- 
tion, then  this  same  matter  must  have  passed  on — perhaps  in 
augmented  volume — into  the  consciousness  and  teaching  of 
the  next  generation  ;  this  same  human  personality  must  have 
towered  still  higher  in  the  imagination  of  the  disciples  of  the 
first  disciples.  Indeed,  it  is  the  accepted  view  that  the 
miracle-stories  of  the  Gospels  were  mere  exaggerations  by 
the  second  or  third  generation  of  incidents  natural  enough 
in  the  narratives  of  the  first  generation.  To  the  present 
writer  this  view  seems  to  be  wholly  at  fault,  but  its  mere 
existence  is  enough  to  show  that  there  is  no  escape  from  the 
foregoing  conditional  syllogism  in  the  denial  in  question  and 
the  substitution  of  the  post-apostolic  for  the  apostolic  age. 
Indeed,  it  is  a  profoundly  significant  fact — with  which  we 
shall  often  have  to  deal — that  as  we  go  back  to  older  and 
older  representations  we  find  the  human  element  in  the 
Jesushild  fading  visibly  away,  the  divine  coming  more  and 
more  conspicuously  to  the  front,  until  in  proto-Mark  we 
behold  the  manifest  God  ;  while,  conversely,  as  we  descend 
the  stream  of  time,  this  same  human  element  comes  more  and 


METHOD  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  25 

more  obtrusively  to  the  light,  the  divine  gradually  retiring 
relatively,  though  not  absolutely,  into  the  background,  until 
finally,  in  modern  sentimentalisations,  the  divine  Jesus,  the 
vice-Jehovah  of  the  Jew,  the  Saviour-God  of  the  Gentile,  is 
reduced  to  a  mild-mannered  rabbi  or  a  benevolent  dervish. 
That  such  has  actually  been  the  course  of  Gospel  evolution 
shall  be  carefully  proved  in  this  volume. 

METHOD  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

38.  To  be  sure,  it  is  not  for  an  instant  forgotten  or  dis- 
guised that  in  this  contention  there  is  direct  conflict  with  the 
prevailing  view,  as  represented,  for  instance,  by  Schmiedel 
in  his  Das  vierte  Evangeliiun^  according  to  which  the  simple 
humanity  of  the  Synoptics  is  most  subtly  sublimed  into 
divinity  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Not  for  a  moment  would  we 
deny  that  such  criticism  has  a  certain  apparent  justification. 
However,  that  justification  is  only  apparent,  and  arises  not 
so  much  from  stressing  the  divine  element  in  John's  Gospel — 
which  is  undoubtedly  present  there,  though  in  a  peculiar 
Gnostic  theosophic  fashion  different  enough  from  the  earlier 
directer  concept — as  from  ignoring  or  minimising  the  human 
element,  which  is  consciously  and  intentionally  paraded  by 
the  Evangelist,  and  far  more  from  overlooking  the  divine 
element  in  the  Synoptics,  especially  in  Mark.  Precisely  at 
this  latter  point  seems  to  come  to  light  the  prime  error  of 
this  liberal  criticism,  so  learned  and  acute,  and  otherwise  so 
often  courageously  just  in  its  estimates.  In  fact,  the  whole 
theory  of  Synoptic  interpretation  calls  for  thoroughgoing 
revision,  for  which  preparation  is  already  largely  and 
effectively  made  in  the  frequent  concessions  that  meet  us  in 
such  works  as  Schmiedel's,  already  mentioned.  How  clearly 
does  this  critic  recognise  that  in  the  Synoptists  there  is 
certainly  present  an  important  and  extensive  element  of 
symbolism  even  in  the  sayings  that  he  recognises  as  perfectly 
genuine  "words  of  the  Lord"!  Consider  what  he  says  of 
the  ''  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  "  and  of  the  answer  sent  to  John 
the  Baptist.  Repeatedly  there  forces  itself  into  the  mind  of 
the  critic  the  inexpugnable  perception  that  it  is  simply  impos- 
sible  to  understand  the   Synoptists  without  admitting  that 


26  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

much  of  their  speech  is  pictorial  and  symbolic,  and  is  merely 
turned  into  nonsense  when  it  is  taken  literally.  Ai  some 
time  or  other  there  has  intervened  a  misunderstandings  not 
distantly  analogous  to  that  far-reaching  misunderstanding, 
that  widespread  disease  of  language,  to  which  great  philo- 
logists would  trace  back  whole  systems  of  mythology. 

39.  When  did  this  malady  begin  to  assail  the  Synoptic 
utterances?  It  is  a  question  very  difficult  to  answer,  perhaps 
impossible.  In  different  minds  at  different  places  the  attack 
doubtless  began  at  different  times.  Some  robust  intellects,  like 
the  greater  Gnostic  lights,  resisted  vigorously  and  saw  clearly 
to  the  very  last.  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  speak  of  such.  With 
others  the  invasion  was  early,  the  resistance  weak,  and  the 
confusion  present  from  almost  the  very  outset.  Physicians 
tell  us  that  the  tubercle  bacillus  finds  lodgment  in  nearly 
everyone  very  early — that  we  are  all  more  or  less  tuberculosic. 
But  in  the  great  majority  the  disorder  never  becomes  clinic  ; 
the  defensive  forces  of  the  organism  hold  the  morbid  microbes 
in  check.  In  others,  alas  !  the  enemy  gets  the  upper  hand 
through  this  or  that  contingency  ;  it  may  be  very  early,  it 
may  be  very  late,  in  the  life-period  of  the  organism. 

40.  Somewhat  similar,  methinks,  is  the  distemper  of 
literalism,  of  materialising  the  spiritual,  with  which  all  Chris- 
tianity has  now  lain  on  the  couch  of  suffering  for  eighteen 
hundred  years,  attended  by  throngs  of  learned  and  able 
physicians,  who  have  failed  in  their  prognosis,  failed  in  their 
treatment,  failed  everywhere,  because  from  the  start  they 
were  wrong  in  their  diagnosis.  Now  at  last  the  truth  hidden 
for  so  many  centuries,  dimly  divined  here  and  there  (but  never 
demonstrated)  by  many  superior  spirits  from  time  to  time 
both  in  and  out  of  the  Church — now  at  last  this  irrepressible 
truth  shines  more  and  more  clearly  upon  the  critical  intel- 
ligence, and  illumines  in  streaks  the  New  Testament  from 
Matthew  to  Revelation.  But  its  broad,  diffuse  light,  unbroken 
and  undimmed,  has  yet  to  be  poured  over  the  whole  of  these 
scriptures,  especially  over  the  Synoptics.  In  the  case  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  demonstration  is  easier.  Especially  the 
miracles,  like  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  the  healing  of  the 
blind  man,  the  restoration  of  the  cripple  at  the  pool,  the 
feeding  of  the  thousands,  the  first  sign  at  Cana — all  these 


METHOD  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  27 

and  others  are  such  obvious  symbolisms  that  it  seems  well- 
nigh  impossible  for  any  enlightened  understanding  *'  in  a 
cool  hour"  to  hesitate  concerning  them. 

41.  Nevertheless,  though  there  can  be  no  question  about 
the  general  sense  (however  much  variance  as  to  details),  yet 
the  question  still  presses  :  Where  and  when  did  the  mis- 
understanding begin  ?  It  is  here  that  Schmiedel  seems, 
perhaps,  to  have  expressed  himself  too  forcibly.  He  declares, 
in  spread-type,  that  John  *'  believed,  in  all  his  accounts  of 
miracles^  that  it  was  7'eal  events  with  which  he  was  dealing  ; 
only  by  way  of  supplement  did  they  become  for  him  symbols 
of  mere  thoughts  "  (p.  88).  It  appears  by  no  means  certain 
— nay,  not  even  probable — that  John,  being  such  a  one, 
deluded  himself  in  any  such  measure.  On.  the  contrary,  the 
whole  artistic  scheme  and  method  of  his  Gospel  seems  to  be 
almost  the  opposite.  The  Evangelist  had  inherited  a  certain 
body  of  symbolism,  of  obviously  pictorial  doctrine,  such  as 
that  the  Jesus-cult  gave  sight  to  the  blind,  cured  the  cripple, 
raised  the  dead  and  corrupting  Pagandom  to  life,  cast  its  net 
about  all  the  153  nations  of  the  world  ;  converted  the  mere 
water  of  Jewish  purifications,  rites,  and  ceremonies  into 
vivifying  wine  of  the  Spirit ;  fed  all  the  souls  of  believers 
with  abounding  bread  of  life  and  fish  of  salvation — all  this 
was  but  the  common  property  of  the  Christian  consciousness 
expressed  in  the  familiar  phrases  of  their  technical  religious 
dialect.  These  notions  he  proceeded  to  work  up  into  elaborate 
narrative.  He  sought  to  make  them  more  vivid  and  impres- 
sive by  giving  them  historic  setting  and  dramatic  colouring. 
This  it  is  that  constitutes  his  main  contribution  to  the  repre- 
sentation. He  by  no  means  invented  the  spiritual  content ; 
this  was  present  from  the  very  first,  just  as  the  essence,  the 
idea,  of  a  whole  man  is  dynamically  present  in  the  microscopic 
germ,  the  body  itself  being  but  the  later  unfolding  and  inves- 
titure of  that  germ — Idea.  So  the  Evangelist  has  invented 
no  idea,  no  meaning  of  any  miracle  or  saying ;  all  this  he 
found  ready  at  hand.  But  he  has  invented  the  investiture, 
the  historic-dramatic  garb  in  which  he  has  clothed  these  ideas 
and  meanings. 

42.  In  many  cases  this  seems  to  be  clear  as  the  sun  ;  in 
others  it  may  appear  less  evident,  most  probably  because  our 


28  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

knowledge  of  the  originals  from  which  the  Evangelist  drew 
is  not  so  full  in  these  cases.  Consider  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus.  No  one  needs  to  be  told  that  the  material  event 
is  entirely  unhistorical  ;  the  evasions  of  many  exegetes  are 
merely  melancholy  and  pitiable.  But  whence  comes  Lazarus? 
Clearly  from  the  parable  in  Luke  (xvi,  19-31).  Here  he 
seems  to  symbolise  the  poor  pagan  world,  waiting  for  the 
crumbs  to  fall  from  the  table  of  the  Jew,  rich  in  the  law,  the 
prophets,  the  promises  and  the  oracles  of  God.  The  parable 
goes  on  to  say  that  they  who  had  Moses  and  the  prophets 
would  not  believe  though  one  (Lazarus)  should  rise  from  the 
dead.  On  this  hint  the  Evangelist  speaks.  He  recognises 
this  signal  truth  of  history,  the  stiff-necked  rejection  of  the 
Jesus  by  the  Semite  ;  and  he  thinks  it  deserves  to  be  thrown 
upon  a  broad  and  highly  illumined  dramatic  canvas.  Hence 
the  whole  story.  Not  for  an  instant  does  he  deceive  himself, 
or  intend  to  deceive  others.  He  is  simply  obeying  a  certain 
artistic  instinct ;  he  is  pressing  a  metaphor,  and,  indeed, 
pressing  it  rather  far. 

43.  Again,  regard  the  miracle  of  Cana.  In  Mark  and 
Matthew,  in  the  primitive  doctrine,  the  presence  of  the  Jesus 
(the  parousy  of  the  new  cult)  had  been  spoken  of  as  a  wedding 
feast,  the  "  new  doctrine  "  as  new  wine  that  could  not  be  put 
into  old  bottles.  This  hint,  too,  suffices:  it  must  be  elaborated 
into  a  story,  improved  at  points,  and,  of  course,  slightly 
modified.  Whatever  other  ideas  could  be  easily  and  naturally 
worked  up  in  the  same  story  were  also  introduced,  precisely 
as  a  painter,  while  holding  fast  his  main  idea,  does  not  hesitate 
to  introduce  auxiliary  figures  and  incidents  upon  his  canvas, 
if  only  to  fill  in  and  enrich  his  composition. 

44.  It  would  seem  to  be  almost  a  gratuitous  offence  to  the 
intelligence  of  the  reader  to  pursue  such  illustrations  further. 
It  should  be  added,  however,  that  this,  the  distinctive,  though 
not  peculiar,  method  of  John,  is  by  no  means  confined  to 
the  miracles.  It  permeates,  and  even  determines,  this  whole 
Gospel.  Incidents  and  phrases  of  every  kind  strewn  through 
earlier  Gospels  and  expositions  he  seizes  upon,  amplifies, 
magnifies,  dramatises  at  will.  Of  course,  he  is  not  without 
ideas  of  his  own,  and  he  is  not  slow  to  modify  the  given 
material  in    his   own   sense,   to   suit  his   own    purposes,  to 


METHOD  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  29 

express  his  own  notions  ;  and  he  frequently  enforces  these 
latter  by  long  expositions  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus, 
whereby  he  also  guards  his  reader  against  any  misunder- 
standing of  his  historisations.  But  he  seems  to  have  builded 
better  than  he  knew,  and  to  have  produced  a  series  of  dramatic 
pictures  so  full  of  details,  so  rich  in  situations,  and  withal 
so  lifelike  in  its  characterisations,  that,  in  spite  of  its  obviously 
symbolic  and  unhistoric  nature,  it  has  deceived  full  fifty 
generations  of  beholders,  who  have  thought  to  see  in  it  the 
record  of  an  eye-witness  !  "  Withdraw  the  curtain,"  said 
Zeuxis  to  his  rival,  "that  I  may  see  the  picture";  and 
Parrhasius  smiled,  for  the  curtain  was  the  picture. 

45.  The  twenty-first  chapter  of  John,  whether  written  by 
the  same  author  or  not,  is  certainly  in  the  same  spirit,  and 
contains  another  excellent  exemplification  of  the  Johannine 
manner,  in  the  account  of  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes. 
Clearly  it  harks  back  to  Luke  v,  4-10,  even  as  this  itself 
harks  back  to  Mark  i,  17,  Matthew  iv,  19,  and  especially  xiii,  47 
(or  their  originals).  But  the  writer  says  that,  although  there 
were  so  many,  the  net  did  not  break.  But  how  many?  He 
will  leave  no  doubt  whatever  as  to  his  meaning,  so  he  says 
there  were  153  great  fishes.  Why  not  152  or  154?  What 
virtue  in  153?  Augustine,  following  Origen,  saw  distinctly 
that  this  number  could  not  be  an  accident,'  that  it  must  mean 
something  ;  and  he  found  it  to  be  a  binomial  coefficient,  the 
sum  of  the  natural  numbers  up  to  seventeen,  and  he  directs 
his  audience  to  perform  the  calculation  on  their  fingers.  But 
why  up  to  seventeen  rather  than  sixteen  or  eighteen  ?  Because 
(he  says)  there  were  ten  Commandments,  and  seven  was  the 
number  of  the  Spirit,  as  of  the  Spirits  of  God,  ''  decem  propter 
legem,"  ''  septem  propter  Spiritum."  Here  he  seems  to  lose 
himself  in  hopeless  arbitrariness  and  artificiality.  He  might 
as  well  have  added  that  153=  17  X  9,  and  there  are  nine  Muses, 
Meaning  there  must  be  in  the  number,  but  it  must  not  be 
trivial  nor  far  to  seek.      On  turning  back  to  2  Chronicles 

*  "  Numquam  hoc  Dominus  iuberet  nisi  aliquid  significare  vellet,  quod  nobis 
nosse  expediret.  Quid  ergo  pro  magno  poterit  ad  Jesum  Christum  pertinere, 
si  pisces  caperentur  aut  si  non  caperentur  ?  Sed  ilia  piscatio  nostra  erat 
significatio  "  (Serm.  248,  i).  For  this  whole  observation  concerning  Augustine 
I  must  thank  the  instructive  monograph  of  Professor  E.  A.  Bechtel  on  Finger 
Counting  Among  the  Romans  in  the  Fourth  Century  (1909). 


30  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

(ii,  i6),  the  matter  becomes  clear.  There  it  is  said  that 
"  Solomon  numbered  all  the  strangers  that  were  in  the  land  of 

Israel an  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  and  three  thousand 

and  six  hundred."  Now,  the  word  "  'eleph  "  ("  'alaphim  "), 
here  correctly  rendered  thousand  (s),  means  often  enough 
tribe  (s)  or  clan  (s),  and  on  the  basis  of  the  text  the  Jews 
reckoned  153  as  the  number  of  the  nations  of  the  Gentiles.^ 
These,  then,  are  the  great  fishes  gathered  into  the  all-embrac- 
ing net  of  the  Church,  of  the  new  faith.  On  this  point,  it 
seems,  there  can  hardly  be  any  doubt.  The  numerical  corres- 
pondence can  scarcely  be  accidental,  and  the  explanation  it 
yields  is  perfectly  simple,  natural,  and  satisfactory.^ 

46.  Perhaps  no  one  will  be  minded  to  quarrel  over  the 
six  hundred.  As  not  a  thousand  or  tribe,  it  could  not  be 
counted  as  a  great  fish.  De  minimis  non  curat  lex ;  neither 
does  a  symbolist.  However,  it  may  be  gravely  suspected 
that  the  fraction  was  really  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  else  it 
is  hard  to  understand  the  triple  use  of  "  little  fish  "  {6\papiov) 
(xxi,  9,  10,  13),  and  especially  the  "  great  fishes"  of  verse  11 
— a  phrase  elsewhere  found  in  Scripture  only  at  Jonah  i,  17. 


*  This  statement  rests  upon  a  study  made  twenty  years  ago ;  but,  though 
visualising  now  very  vividly  the  page  of  my  authority,  I  cannot  recall  the 
title  of  the  work  and  so  verify  the  implied  reference.  Accordingly,  I  do  not 
now  maintain  the  correctness  of  the  statement,  which  is  retained  only  because 
it  stands  in  the  German  edition.  It  is  a  well-known  fact,  which  I  have  else- 
where cited,  that  the  Rabbis  commonly  regarded  72  or  70  as  the  number 
of  the  nations.  The  whole  matter  is  trivial,  for  the  general  meaning  of  the 
symbolism  is  transparent.  However,  it  seems  to  me  clear  that  153  must  have 
been  regarded  by  some  as  the  number  of  the  nations,  in  order  to  explain 
153  as  the  number  of  species  of  fish  ;  for  surely  this  latter  number  must  be 
significant,  and  whence  could  it  come  but  from  the  passage  in  Chronicles  ? 

^  In  all  ages  it  has  been  felt  that  the  number  must  be  explained,  but  all 
other  explanations  seem  forced  or  fanciful.  Thus  Cyril  of  Alexandria  sees  in 
it  a  symbol  of  the  Church  (100  for  Gentiles,  50  for  Jews)  and  the  Trinity  ! 
That  the  number  in  some  way  imaged  pagandom  was  very  early  perceived, 
and  seems  to  have  given  rise  to  the  notion,  attributed  by  Jerome  to  the  Cilician 
poet  Oppian  and  others,  that  there  were  just  153  species  of  fish.  Volkmar 
(Uimmelf.  Mose,  62)  and  Keim  (Jesus  von  Nazara,  III,  564),  following  Egli, 
must,  of  course,  have  another  opinion,  and  sum  the  letters  of  Shimeon  (71), 
Bar  (22),  Jonah  (31),  Kepha  (29),  and  of  Shimeon  (71),  Jochanna  (53), 
Kepha  (29).  Still  otherwise,  Eisler,  in  The  Quest  (January,  191 1).  But  what 
sense  in  any  such  gematria  ?  Only  the  interpretation  of  Hengstenberg  (II,  336) 
sets  the  mind  at  rest.  However,  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument  it  is  quite 
indifferent  what  symbolic  interpretation  be  adopted  ;  it  is  important  only  that 
some  such  interpretation  is  necessary  ;  the  literal  interpretation  is  banal  and 
ludicrous.  True,  Godet  is  still  content  therewith  ;  but  this  fact  merely  registers 
the  declension  from  Augustine. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  MISUNDERSTANDING  31 


THE  PRIMITIVE  MISUNDERSTANDING 

47.  Returning  now  to  the  contentions  of  Professor 
Schmiedel,  we  note  that  he  raises  the  question  **  whether 
John  held  the  miracle  of  loaves  to  have  been  an  actual  event." 
If  so,  then  certainly  ''  erroneously."  "  But  inasmuch  as  there 
had  been  a  time  when  it  was  still  known  that  it  was  not  an 
actual  event,  it  is  not  entirely  unthinkable  that  John  also  had 
inherited  this  perception  from  that  time"  (p.  84).  This  seems 
not  only  ''  not  entirely  unthinkable,"  but,  in  view  of  the 
thoroughly  self-conscious  method  of  the  Evangelist,  as  just 
illustrated,  it  seems  positively  necessary,  and  the  contradic- 
tory unthinkable.  Strangely,  however.  Professor  Schmiedel 
adds  :  "  On  the  other  hand,  however,  this,  again,  is  scarcely 
probable,  since  the  Synoptists  in  any  case  no  longer  had  any 
such  perception,  and  John  wrote  after  them  and  derived  from 
them."  But  here  must  be  placed  more  than  one  question 
mark.  Very  possibly,  in  some  parts  of  the  Synoptists,  the 
original  correct  view  of  all  these  incidents  as  symbols  has 
been  lost ;  but  in  other  parts  it  is  still  found  distinctly  pre- 
served ;  in  others  it  may  be  doubtful.  So,  too,  the  fact  that 
John  wrote  later  proves  nothing,  as  we  have  already  seen. 
In  more  enlightened  Gnostic  circles  the  original  symbolic 
sense  of  the  Gospel  narratives  was  long  recognised  ;  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  traces  of  it  may  be  found  even  in  Jerome  and 
Augustine.  Thus  one  of  the  most  patent  of  all  symbols  is 
found  in  the  healing  of  the  withered  hand,  on  the  Sabbath, 
in  the  Synagogue.  Manifestly  the  man  is  Jewish  Humanity, 
lamed  by  the  letter  of  Jewish  law  and  tradition,  but  restored 
to  strength  and  power  for  good  by  the  emancipating  cult  of 
the  Jesus.  So  clear  is  this  that  even  Jerome  could  not  fail  to 
see  it.  In  commentary  on  the  Matthaean  parallel,  he  says  : 
"  Up  to  the  advent  of  the  Saviour,  dry  was  the  hand  in  the 
Synagogue  of  the  Jews,  and  works  of  God  were  not  done 
therein  ;  after  he  came  to  earth,  the  right  hand  was  returned 
to  the  Jews  that  believed  on  the  apostles,  and  was  restored  to 
service."  Just  at  this  point  we  think  that  Schmiedel  has 
hardly  done  the  Synoptists  justice.  He  seems  to  have 
minimised  unduly  their  consciousness  of  the  symbolic  nature 


32  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

of  their  narratives.  We  suspect  they  saw  matters  far  more 
clearly  than  he  thinks,  though  we  by  no  means  would  say 
there  has  been  no  such  misunderstanding  crystallised  in  the 
Gospels. 

48.  This,  however,  is  not  essential ;  whether  the  Evan- 
gelists or  their  successors  misunderstood  is  comparatively 
unimportant.  The  weighty  fact,  distinctly  admitted  and  even 
accented  by  Schmiedel,  is  that  soinehody  fnisunderstood :  that 
original  symbolism  has  been  misconstrued  into  history.^  Here 
is  the  very  inmost  nerve  and  core  of  this  book  and  the  exegetic 
theory  it  sets  forth.  We  are  glad  to  find  such  recognition, 
at  least  partial,  of  its  correctness  by  such  as  Schmiedel,  who, 
of  course,  represents  many.  His  great  predecessor,  Volkmar, 
has  made  much  of  Sinnbilder.  My  own  thoughts  on  the 
subject  have  been  originated  and  developed  entirely  indepen- 
dently of  Volkmar  even,  who,  I  am  free  to  admit,  has 
anticipated  them  at  a  number  of  points,  as  above,  in  explaining 
the  withered  hand  {Marcus  206,  R.J,  224).  But  Volkmar  and 
Schmiedel  and  the  rest  are  very  far  from  pressing  this  just 
recognition  to  its  logical  issue.  They  have  no  doubt  what- 
ever that  Jesus  actually  lived  and  spake  ;  that  his  sayings 
were  misunderstood,  and  hence  the  immense  overgrowth  of 
legend  and  thaumaturgy.  Moreover,  Schmiedel  is  convinced 
that  such  a  story  as  that  of  Lazarus  was  in  the  first  place 
actually  misunderstood,  and  under  that  misunderstanding 
actually  elaborated  into  the  Johannine  account.  He  would, 
in  fact,  relieve  the  Evangelist  from  the  reproach  of  having 
invented  the  whole  story ;  though  he  questions  whether  it 
need  really  be  a  reproach,  on  assuming  that  the  resurrection 
was  really  "  handed  down  "  to  him  as  a  fact,  some  person — 
perhaps  a  woman ! — having  misunderstood  the  symbolic 
statement  that  Lazarus  really  arose,  but  still  the  Jews  dis- 
believed. To  our  mind,  this  view,  while  right  at  so  many 
points,  is  yet  in  its  entirety  incredible,  for  it  reduces  John  to 
a  mere  cipher,  whereas  he  was  a  deep  thinker  and  a  great 
literary  artist,  and  it  overlooks  the  intense  self-consciousness 

^  That  such  misconstructions  characterised  early  Christian  thinking  is  well- 
known  and  sometimes  frankly  recognised.  Says  Conybeare  {Myth^  Magic, 
and  Morals^  p.  231):  "Here  we  see  turned  into  incident  an  allegory  often 
employed  by  Philo."  And  again  :  "  What  is  metaphor  and  allegory  in  Philo 
was  turned  into  history  by  the  Christians." 


THE  PRIMITIVE  MISUNDERSTANDING  33 

that  his  Gospel  betrays  in  almost  every  verse.  The  central 
thought  he  did,  indeed,  take  from  Luke ;  the  elaboration 
appears  wholly  and  consciously  his  own. 

49.  But  the  main  point  of  difference  withSchmiedel  concerns 
the  nine  pillars — a  matter  so  important,  as  already  observed, 
that  in  this  book  there  is  dedicated  to  it  an  entire  chapter. 
Only  one  observation  remains  here  to  add — namely,  that 
Schmiedel  rightly  recognises  that  the  question  of  these  pillars 
is  a  question  of  the  standing  or  the  falling  of  the  whole 
modern  critical  theory  of  the  purely  human  Jesus.  "  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  only  such  passages  that  give  us  surety  that  we 
may  rely  upon  the  Gospels  in  which  they  occur — i.e,^  upon  the 
first  three — at  least  in  some  measure.  Were  such  passages 
wholly  wanting,  it  would  be  hard  to  make  head  against  the 
contention  that  the  Gospels  showed  us  everywhere  only  the 
picture  of  a  saint  painted  on  a  background  of  gold  ;  and 
we  could,  therefore,  by  no  means  ever  know  how  Jesus 
had  in  reality  appeared — nay,  perhaps,  whether,  indeed, 
he  had  ever  lived  at  all"  (p.  17).  We  shall  see  these 
seeming  pillars  crumble — that  "  such  passages  "  are  ''  wholly 
wanting." 

50.  It  has  been  noted  that  it  is  very  emphatically  held  by 
the  school  against  which  these  pages  are  levelled  that  the 
Jesus  spoke  in  pictures  that  were  then  misunderstood.  The 
proof  of  this  mode  of  utterance  (though  not,  of  course,  of  any 
literal  speech  of  Jesus)  lies  open  on  nearly  every  page  of  the 
Gospels,  according  to  which  the  parable  was  the  favourite 
form  of  his  speaking.  The  words  of  Mark  (iv,  33,  34),  "  And 
with  many  such  parables  spake  he  the  word  unto  them,  as 
they  were  able  to  hear  it ;  and  without  a  parable  spake  he 
not  unto  them,"  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasised.  Here  is 
unequivocal  testimony  that  the  primitive  teaching  was  exclu- 
sively in  symbols,  and  the  significance  of  this  fact  is  beyond 
estimation.  For  why  was  this  earliest  teaching  thus  clothed 
in  symbols?  To  make  it  intelligible?  Assuredly  not !  It 
is  distinctly  said  that  it  had  to  be  explained  privately  to  the 
disciples  (Mark  iv,  34),  and  that  it  was  to  keep  the  multitude 
from  understanding  it.  **  Unto  you  is  given  the  mystery  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  :  but  unto  them  that  are  without,  all 
things  are  done  in  parables  :  that  seeing  they  may  see,  and 


34  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

not  perceive";  etc'  It  appears  hardly  possible  for  language  to 
be  clearer.  Here  seems  to  be  described  a  secret  cult  of  a  secret 
society  ;  they  understand  each  other  as  they  speak  in 
symbols,  but  it  remains  a  mystery  and  incomprehensible  to 
*' those  without" — to  all  but  initiates,  members  of  the 
kingdom  of  God. 


"ESOTERISM"  IN  THE  GOSPEL 

51.  Herewith  there  is  laid  bare  not  only  the  fact  of  the 
practically  exclusive  or  at  least  prevailing  use  of  symbols  in 
the  early  cult,  but  also  its  reason  as  well :  //  was  the  dialect  of 
a  secret  order,  intentionally  unintelligible  to  outsiders.  There 
seems  to  be  no  other  possible  interpretation  of  this  unam- 
biguous passage.  What  says  the  orientalist,  Wellhausen? 
Evidently  he  is  bewildered  ;  verse  10  (Mark  iv)  is  an  utter 
puzzle    to    him,    and   from    his   standpoint   most   naturally. 

"That  would  not  agree  with  iv,  33,  36." ''That  is  hardly 

possible." '' Finally,  the  plural  rag  7rapa[5oXag  [the  parables] 

can  scarcely  be  understood  at  this  point."  Commenting  on 
iv,  II,  12,  he  says:  "A  parable  serves  indeed  primarily  to 
visualise  some  higher  truth  by  means  of  something  more 
familiar.  Since,  however,  the  point  must  be  sought  and 
found,  it  serves  also  as  well  to  excite  attention  and  reflection 
as  to  put  them  to  the  test.  That  Jesus  employed  it  for  this 
purpose,  just  like  Isaiah  and  other  teachers,  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  However,  this  is  still  not  the  esoterism  that  is 
implied  in  iv,  11,  12,  and  halfway  also  in  iv,  33,  34.  This 
esoterism  is  not  merely  excluded  by  iv,  21,  but  it  also  con- 
tradicts even  the  sense  of  the  first  parable  ;  they  all  under- 
stand the  word,  but  they  take  it  in  very  unequal  measure  home 
to  their  hearts.  Not  even  to  mention  the  compassion  of 
Jesus  for  the  o)(Xoi  [multitudes],  which  is  elsewhere  so 
conspicuous."  These  are  words  of  gold,  worth  remembering 
by  every  student  of  the  Gospels.  They  characterise  and 
illustrate  most  admirably  the  spirit  and  procedure  of  the 
critical  school.  Note  first  that  the  real  object  of  the  parable, 
as  given  by  Mark,  is  quite  overlooked,  and  instead  thereof 

*  Mk.  iv.  II,  Mt,  xlii.  ii,  Luke  viii.  lo. 


"ESOTERISM"  IN  THE  GOSPEL  35 

another  entirely  different  object  is  assumed.  Why  ?  Only 
because  it  seems  natural  that  Jesus  would  act  like  Isaiah  and 
others  !  Then  it  is  declared  that  he  did  so  !  An  a  priori 
concept  of  the  Jesus  is  formed,  and  then  it  is  held  beyond  all 
doubt  that  he  lived  up  to  that  concept !  What  may  not  be 
proved  by  this  method?  Of  course,  Wellhausen  is  perfectly 
honest,  and  will  not  deny  the  obvious  and  necessary  sense  of 
verses  11,  12,  33,  34.  He  concedes  it,  but  only  in  one  word — 
"  esoterism  " — and  then  rejects  it  utterly.  Why  ?  Because  he 
thinks  it  is  excluded  by  verse  21,  contradicts  the  sense  of  the 
first  parable,  and  does  not  consist  with  the  compassion  of 
Jesus  for  the  multitudes  !  Suppose  all  this  were  correct — 
what  reason  would  it  be  for  rejecting  the  obvious  sense  of  the 
four  verses  ?  Why  not  just  as  well  accept  the  four  verses  and 
reject  the  three  reasons?  The  only  answer  is  that  Well- 
hausen must  maintain  his  concept  of  the  Jesus  at  all  hazards ; 
he  accepts  what  he  can  reconcile  therewith,  he  must  reject 
what  he  cannot  so  reconcile.  Hence  he  must  and  does  reject 
the  four  verses.  But  would  it  not  be  far  better  to  reject  the 
concept?     Methinks  so,  and  this  book  shall  prove  it. 

52.  Meantime,  what  about  the  three  reasons?  Are  they 
valid  as  against  the  four  verses?  Very  far  from  it.  The 
first  is  that  the  "esoterism"  of  the  verse  is  excluded  by 
verse  21  ;  let  us  add  verse  22,  and  it  becomes  clear  that,  so 
far  from  being  excluded,  it  is  necessarily  implied  by  these 
verses  21,  22  :  "Is  the  lamp  brought  to  be  put  under  the 
bushel,  or  under  the  bed,  and  not  to  be  put  on  the  stand? 
For  there  is  nothing  hid  save  that  it  should  be  manifested  ; 
neither  was  anything  made  secret  but  that  it  should  come  to 
light.  If  any  man  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear."  Could 
there  be  a  plainer  declaration  that  the  primitive  teaching  was 
secret,  that  subsequently  the  teaching  was  to  be  made  public  ? 
What  other  possible  meaning  can  attach  to  such  words  as 
hid  and  made  secret^  manifested s-nd  come  to  light?  The  refer- 
ence of  verse  21  is  also  palpable  :  the  Jesus  doctrine  is  the 
lamp  that  is  now  to  be  put  upon  the  stand  to  enlighten  the 
world.  Of  course,  the  cult  was  not  intended  to  remain,  and 
did  not,  in  fact,  remain  secret ;  it  was  at  length  brought  into 
the  open  ;  the  writer  of  these  verses  is  evidently  defending 
this  publication,  which  had  perhaps  been  criticised  by  some 


36  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

of  the  more  cautious  as  premature.  Mark  also  the  oracle, 
"If  any  man  have  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear.'*  This  points 
unerringly  to  a  secret  lore,  clothed  in  words  unintelligible  to 
the  outsider,  but  vocal  to  the  instructor.  It  was  like  the 
Masonic  grip,  which  only  the  Mason  can  recognise.  The 
words  mean  simply  only  members  understand.  The  follow- 
ing verses  24-34  confirm  the  foregoing  at  every  point.  They 
all  point  more  or  less  directly  at  the  same  great  fact,  that  the 
primitive  teaching  was  secret  and  was  intelligible  only  to 
initiates,  yet  that  it  was  never  meant  to  be  so  permanently, 
but  only  until  the  time  was  ripe  to  proclaim  it  openly  to  the 
world.  So  far,  then,  from  contradicting  verses  11,  12,  as 
Wellhausen  thinks,  the  following  verses  confirm  them  fully. 
53.  But  Wellhausen  holds  that  verses  11,  12  contradict 
the  sense  of  the  great  first  parable,  according  to  which  he 
thinks  that  "all  understand  the  word,  but  take  it  very 
differently  to  heart."  If,  indeed,  all  understood  it  then,  they 
were  certainly  far  wiser  than  men  are  now.  But  it  is  not  said 
that  all  understood  the  word  ;  nothing  like  it  is  said  ;  nothing 
is  said  whatever  about  understanding.  The  distinction  Well- 
hausen makes  between  understanding  and  "enhearting"  the 
word  is  foreign  to  the  text  and  to  the  thought  of  the  parabolist. 
"  'T were  to  consider  too  curiously,  to  consider  so. "  Moreover, 
this  interpretation  is  itself  comparatively  late  ;  we  have  no 
reason  to  put  it  in  line  with  the  parable  itself.  Even  if  there 
were  a  contradiction,  it  would  not  break  nor  set  aside  the 
obvious  meaning  of  verses  11,  12,  for  it  would  arise  merely 
from  the  addition  of  another  scribe,  who  need  not  have  been 
in  accord  with  the  first.  On  the  whole  subject  of  this  chiefest 
of  the  parables  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  essay  "  The  Sower 
Sows  the  Logos,"  in  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus ^  where  the  older 
form  of  the  parable  is  restored,  and  it  is  shown  that  the  Logos 
was  by  no  means  the  preached  word,  but  the  Spermatic  Logos 
of  ancient  Stoic  and  Jewish  philosophy,  and  that  the  parable 
was  originally  an  allegory  of  Creation.  Matthew  hints  very 
broadly  at  the  new  form  and  significance  given  the  old  Mashal 
in  saying  (xiii,  52),  '^Therefore  every  scribe  discipled  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  man,  a  householder,  who 
brings  forth  out  of  his  treasure  things  new  and  things  old" — 
a  most  instructive  verse,  from  which  it  would  clearly  appear 


"ESOTERISM  "  IN  THE  GOSPEL  37 

that  this  instruction  in  parables,  in  the  secret  dialect  of  the 
''new  doctrine,"  was  a  regular  part  of  the  discipling  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  this  latter  can  be  nothing  (in  New 
Testament  usage)  but  another  name  for  the  secret  organisation 
itself,  destined  to  embrace  the  whole  earth  converted  to  the 
knowledge  and  worship  of  the  One  God. 

54.  Lastly,  Wellhausen  finds  the  admitted  esoterism  of 
verses  11,  12,  33,  34  at  variance  with  the  compassion  of  Jesus 
for  the  multitudes  (6x^01,  though  Mark  uses  always — unless  x,  i 
— the  singular,  oxXoc,  multitude).  Well,  what  of  it?  Must 
we,  therefore,  reject  or  discredit  these  verses?  Assuredly 
not.  Wellhausen  seems  to  think  that  Jesus  could  not  have 
taught  in  parables  unintelligible  to  the  people,  and  to  be 
afterwards  explained  to  the  disciples,  because  that  would  not 
have  shown  his  compassion.  Yet  Ms  is  precisely  what  he  did, 
unless  we  discredit  not  merely  these  verses,  but  the  whole 
story — yea,  the  whole  Gospel.  For  the  parables  are  a  fact, 
and  since  they  have  certainly  puzzled  the  finest  intellects  of 
Christendom,  from  Origen  and  earlier  to  Julicher,  it  is  simply 
certain  that  they  could  not  have  cleared  up  matters  for  the 
peasantry  of  Galilee.  The  parable — the  parable  not  under- 
stood by  the  multitude — is  far  more  strongly  attested  than  the 
compassion,  and  it  is  purely  arbitrary  to  yield  up  the  former 
in  favour  of  the  latter.  Besides,  the  actual  existence  in  the 
text  of  the  explanation  of  the  parable  proves  incontestably 
that  it  was  originally  conceived  as  a  riddle  by  no  means  easy 
to  interpret — in  fact,  impossible  even  for  disciples  unaided. 

55.  But  does  the  compassion  of  which  the  Jesus-biographers 
make  so  very  much  really  contradict  the  esoterism  ?  Not  in 
the  least,  save  only  in  the  critic's  imagination.  A  close  study 
of  this  compassion  shows  that  it  is  always  a  divine,  and  not  a 
human,  attribute  ascribed  to  the  Jesus  :  it  is  the  compassion 
of  the  new  Jehovah,  the  healing  divinity,  for  the  multitude, 
the  mass  of  humanity,  idolatrous  pagandom  ignorant  of  the 
true  God.  This  is  clearly  shown  in  the  Greek  word  by  which  it 
is  uniformlyexpressed — aTT\a^xviX,o\iai — which  word  Hellenises 
the  Hebrew  oni  (viscera,  in  plural),  which  is  regularly  and 
almost  exclusively  used  in  the  Old  Testament  of  Jehovah, 
just  as  the  Greek  equivalent  is  used  specifically  of  the  Jesus 
or  the  Lord.     Never  do  we  find  tXecw  (though  such  a  Gospel 


38  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

favourite)  used  of  the  Jesus  ;  never  crujLi7raor;5(w,  which  would 
seem  very  natural  ;  never  olKTEipo);  never  juLeTpioTraOad) — only  this 
most  peculiar  (nrXajxviZoiuLai,  which  itself  almost  needs  an  inter- 
preter, and  for  the  obvious  reason  just  given.  What,  then, 
is  meant  by  this  divine  compassion  ?  Plainly,  it  is  the  pity  of 
God  upon  the  heathen  worlds  because  of  its  polytheism,  its 
straying  afar  from  the  worship  of  the  true  Deity.  It  is 
precisely  the  same  pity  that  is  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  the  ancient 
pre-Christian  Naassene  Hymn  quoted  in  Der  vorchristliche 
Jesus  (pp.  31,  32).  It  was  exactly  to  save  the  pagan  multitude 
from  idolatry  that  Jesus  came  into  the  world — that  the  Jesus- 
cult  (in  the  hymn  called  the  Gnosis)  was  instituted  and 
propagated.'  Such  is  also  the  Gospel  idea,  as  is  clearly 
expressed  in  Mark  vi,  34  and  Matthew  ix,  36 :  **  He  had 
compassion  on  them,  because  they  were  as  sheep  not  having 
a  shepherd  :  and  he  began  to  teach  them  many  things."  To 
suppose  that  a  human  Jesus  actually  beheld  great  multitudes 
following  him,  and  pitied  them  as  sheep  scattered  and  torn, 
and  then  began  to  teach  them  many  things^  is  unspeakably 
absurd.  Manifestly,  it  was  spiritual  error  and  wandering 
from  which  they  were  suffering,  and  this  was  to  be,  and 
could  be,  corrected  only  by  teaching.  Elsewhere  and  fre- 
quently these  same  multitudes  are  represented  as  over- 
whelmed with  all  manner  of  bodily  disease,  "and  he  healed 
them  all  "  (Matthew  xii,  15).  Clearly,  such  a  state  of  virtually 
universal  physical  invalidism  is  wholly  impossible.  Clearly, 
the  condition  of  the  multitude  in  one  case  must  be  practically 
the  same  as  in  the  other :  if  in  Mark  vi,  34  he  expressed  his 
compassion  by  teaching  them^  in  Matthew  xii,  15  he  must 
have  done  the  like  also.  Every  index,  then,  points  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  spiritual  maladies,  and  only  spiritual,  that  he 
was  healing,  and  healing  by  the  "new  doctrine."     It  was 


'  As  late  as  Lactantius  (a.d.  300)  this  was  distinctly  felt  and  avowed :  "For 
when  God  saw  that  wickedness  and  cults  of  false  g-ods  had  so  prevailed  through- 
out all  lands  that  even  his  name  was  almost  effaced  from  the  memory  of  men 
(seeing  that  the  Jews  also,  to  whom  alone  the  secret  of  God  had  been  entrusted, 
forsaking-  the  living  God,  ensnared  by  the  deceits  of  demons,  had  turned  aside 
to  worshipping  imag-es,  and  would  not,  though  rebuked  by  prophets,  return  to 
God),  he  sent  hfs  Son  [Prince  of  Angels]  as  legate  to  men,  that  he  might 
convert  them  from  vain  and  impious  cults  unto  knowledge  and  worship  of  the 
true  God  "  {Div,  Instit.  iv.  14).  That  Lactantius  regarded  the  "  Son  "  as  a 
mid-being  between  man  and  the  Highest  God  is  irrelevant. 


"ESOTERISM"  IN  THE  GOSPEL  39 

spiritual  blindness,  deafness,  lameness,  leprosy,  death,  that 
he  overcame,  and  all  in  the  same  way — by  preaching  the 
Gospel  to  the  poor  (the  Gentiles).  Here,  then,  is  the  full 
and  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  much-misunderstood  com- 
passion of  the  Jesus,  which  in  no  wise  opposes  the  esoterism 
of  the  primitive  cult.  There  was  no  lack  of  sympathy 
in  the  early  secrecy ;  it  was  in  the  main  a  prudential 
measure,  well  enough  justified,  but  intended  to  be  only 
temporary. 

56.  The  objections  of  the  Gottingen  critic  are,  then, 
one  and  all,  invalid  at  every  point ;  they  are  completely 
vitiated  by  a  false  notion  of  the  humanity  of  the  Jesus. 
Moreover,  they  are  bound  up  inextricably  with  that  notion, 
and  when  they  fall  the  notion  itself  goes  down  with  them. 
For  notice  that  the  esoterism,  the  primitive  secrecy  of  the 
cult,  is  unescapably  involved  in  the  four  verses  11,  12,  33,  34, 
as  Wellhausen  himself  admits.  He  finds  himself  driven  to 
practical  rejection  of  these  verses,  for  the  reasons  we  have 
examined.  But  none  of  these  reasons  are  valid,  and  therefore 
the  verses,  and  therewith  the  esoterism,  the  cult-secrecy, 
must  stand.  But  such  esoterism  does  flatly  contradict  the 
Jesus-character  of  the  critics,  which  is  thereby  shown  to  be 
only  caricature.  As  the  logician  of  Marburg  has  so  power- 
fully put  it :  '*  This  Either-Or  goes  deep :  either  the  Evan- 
gelists or  Jesus."  With  perfect  consistency  and  admirable 
honesty,  he  flatly  rejects  the  Evangelists,  as  Wellhausen  does, 
and  declares  :  "  He  who  places  Jesus  higher,  who  will  not 
pluck  out  the  diamond  from  his  imperishable  crown  of 
honour,'  he  will  break  off  a  pebble  from  the  bulwark  of 
tradition  and  confess  that  the  aim  of  the  teaching  in  parables, 
in  spite  of  Mark  and  the  other  Evangelists,  is  still  simpler 
than  the  teaching  itself"  {^Die  Gleichnissreden  Jesu^  I.  148). 

*  In  view  of  the  indisputable  fact  that  the  critical  humanisers  of  the  Jesus 
cannot  at  all  agree  upon  the  most  essential  features  of  the  "  Jesusbild,"  it 
seems  impossible  at  this  point  not  to  recall  the  famous  lines  of  Milton  : — 

"  The  other  shape, 
If  shape  it  might  be  call'd,  that  shape  had  none 
Disting-uishable  in  member,  joint,  or  limb, 
Or  substance  might  be  call'd  that  shadow  seem'd, 

For  each  seem'd  either  ; 

what  seem'd  his  head 

The  likeness  of  a  kingly  crown  had  on." 


40  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

57.  This  seems  to  be  one  of  the  most  important  passages 
in  modern  criticism.  The  expositor  of  parables  here  openly 
admits  that  the  liberal  criticism  at  this  most  vital  point  must 
defy  (trotz)  Mark  and  the  other  Evangelists  ;  he  avows,  in 
eloquent  terms,  that  the  dilemma  is  before  us  :  either  the 
Evangelists  or  Jesus  ;  and  he  accepts  the  latter,  rejecting  the 
former.  Yes,  if  we  had  to  choose,  there  being  no  third 
choice,  we  should  certainly  prefer  Jesus  to  the  Evangelists — 
only  what  Jesus  ?  Surely  not  the  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists 
themselves ;  in  rejecting  them  you  reject  the  Jesus  they 
offer.  No,  it  is  not  the  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists  ;  it  is  the 
Jesus-figure  of  the  liberal  critics  that  stands  opposed  to  the 

Evangelists  in  Julicher's  dilemma.  This  latter  is  a  pure, 
noble,  beautiful  man — nothing  else,  nothing  more.  We 
admire  it  greatly,  but  we  must  at  the  same  time  recognise 
that  it  is  not  the  Jesus  ;  it  is  only  "  a  liberal  Jesus-idea."  It 
is  a  mere  chimera,  a  creature  of  fancy,  not  really  thinkable, 
and  wholly  destitute  of  historic  validity  or  justification. 
Without  hesitancy  we  must  reject  this  Jesus-figure,  but  not 
therewith  do  we  reject  Jesus,  On  the  contrary,  we  substitute 
for  Julicher's  dilemma  a  single  lemma:  we  affirm  and  main- 
tain that  the  only  real  Jesus  is  the  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists, 
tho,  purely  divine  Jesus  ^  who  in  the  Gospels  has  ''cast  about 
him  the  shining  semblance  of  a  reverend  man." 

Let  it,  then,  be  repeated,  with  emphasis  that  can  never 
be  excessive,  that  these  two  representative  liberal  critics  have 
here  admitted  unequivocally  the  final  irreconcilability  of  their 
theory  of  the  human  Jesus  with  the  fundamental  New  Testa- 
ment fact  of  the  teaching  in  parables.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  theory  of  the  divine  Jesus  and  of  his  pre-Christian  secret 
cult  harmonises  with  this  fact  perfectly,  and  explains  it  com- 
pletely. 

58.  On  the  basis,  then,  of  this  passage  alone  we  may  con- 
fidently affirm  the  primitive  secrecy  of  the  Jesus-cult.  But 
it  is  very  far  from  being  alone.  Over  a  score  of  times  do  we 
find  reference  to  secrecy  and  hiding  of  something,  the  most 
of  which  can  hardly  refer  to  aught  else  than  the  primitive 
esoterism  that  is  admittedly  present  in  Mark  iv,  11,  12, 
33,  34.  Of  course,  it  is  quite  impossible  to  treat  these 
passages  in  detail  in  this  connection.     Besides  these  there 


"ESOTERISM"  IN  THE  GOSPEL  41 

are  many  other  passages  of  similar  implication.  The 
word  mystery  (that  which  is  known  only  to  initiates)  occurs 
twenty-seven  times  in  the  New  Testament,  especially  often 
in  I  Corinthians,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Revelation.  It 
seems  impossible  for  it  to  refer  to  anything  less  than  secret 
knowledge,  hidden  lore,  though  the  reference  may  often  be 
to  something  more  included  in  this.  The  Apostle  says 
(i  Cor.  ii,  6,  7) :  **  But  we  speak  wisdom  among  the  perfect"; 
"  But  we  speak  God's  wisdom  in  mystery,  the  concealed 
wisdom,  which  God  foreordained  before  the  seons  unto  our 
glory,  which  none  of  the  archons  of  this  seon  knew  ;  for  if 
they  had  known  they  had  not  crucified  the  Lord  of  Glory." 
We  ask,  with  all  possible  directness  and  emphasis.  Can  it 
then  be  that  a  secret  doctrine  is  not  here  in  the  mind  of  the 
epistolist?  Assuredly  not!  Consider  the  words  mystery^ 
the  concealed  wisdom^  and,  most  of  all,  the  word  perfect. 
The  Greek  term  T£kzioq  cannot  have  reference  to  moral  or 
spiritual  perfection  ;  surely  no  one  will  contend  that  there 
was  such  a  class  among  Paul's  converts,  unto  whom  he  dis- 
coursed this  concealed  wisdom  in  a  mystery.  The  rlXetoc  or 
perfect  was  one  that  had  reached  the  rcXoc  or  end,  that  had 
completed  the  whole  course  of  instruction  in  this  secret  lore  ; 
as  one  says  of  a  Mason,  that  he  has  taken  all  the  degrees  ;  he 
might  almost  be  termed  a  graduate.  So  Upa  riXsia  are  sacri- 
fices perfect  or  performed  with  all  the  rites  (Thuc.  v,  47).  It 
is  (as  it  were)  a  graduate  course  that  the  epistolist  has  in 
mind.  Moreover,  we  know  that  these  "  perfects  "  formed, 
among  the  Gnostics,  a  class  of  whom  there  is  frequent  talk 
in  the  heresiographers. 

59.  Furthermore,  this  passage  seems  to  hint  at  still 
deeper  matters,  which  cannot  here  be  adequately  discussed. 
Can  it  be  that  the  authorities  in  Jerusalem  are  meant  by  *'the 
archons  of  this  seon  that  are  coming  to  naught"?  Improb- 
ably, as  Schmiedel  has  clearly  seen.  They  are  rather  the 
archons  or  kin  to  the  archons  so  conspicuous  in  Gnostic 
cosmic  theory.  We  may  understand  the  crucifixion  of 
Jesus,  but  who  can  understand  the  crucifixion  (by  these 
archons)  of  the  Lord  of  Glory?  Surely  not  Calvary  nor  any 
earthly  mount,  but  the  supernal  hills  of  heaven,  are  in  the 
lofty  thought  of  the  author.     Consider  also  the  remarkable 


42  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

citation  ("as  it  is  written*')  in  verse  9  :  "Things  which  eye 
saw  not,  and  ear  heard  not,  and  which  entered  not  into  the 
heart  of  man — whatsoever  things  God  prepared  for  them 
that  love  him."  This  would  apparently  hark  back  to 
Empedocles :  "Neither  seen  are  these  things  by  men,  nor 
heard,  nor  by  mind  comprehended "  (i,  8,  9a  ;  Plut.  Mor, 
I'je)  ;  yet  the  last  clause,  "whatsoever,"  etc.,  seems  to  show 
that  in  descending  to  our  epistolist  it  had  received 
accession  as  well  as  modification  en  route^  and  Zacharias  of 
Chrysopolis  declares  {Harm,  Evan.^  p.  343)  that  he  had  read 
the  words  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Elias.  There  appears  no 
escape  from  the  conclusion  that  they  are  cited  from  some 
such  source,  here  regarded  as  authoritative.  The  epistolist, 
then,  was  familiar  with  such  apocryphal  works,  and  if  he 
moved  in  such  a  circle  of  thought  it  seems  hard  to  assign 
any  limit  to  the  extravagations  of  his  fancy  ;  he  may  very 
well  have  dealt  in  mysteries,  in  which  the  deep  Gnostic 
philosophy,  "God's  wisdom,"  was  taught,  both  otherwise 
and  by  symbolic  rites  and  ceremonies,  one  of  which  may 
very  well  have  been  some  representation  of  the  Divine 
Sufferer,  the  self-sacrifice  of  the  Great  High  Priest  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedek,  or  the  like. 

60.  There  are  not  a  few  other  Pauline  passages  that 
strongly  suggest  a  similar  state  of  the  case,  as  those  that 
speak  of  bearing  about  always  the  dying  of  the  Jesus,  of 
bearing  the  stigmata  of  the  Jesus,  of  being  con-crucified  and 
consepulchred  with  Jesus — all  of  which  seem  to  mean  more 
than  is  commonly  suspected.  But  this  subject  is  too  exten- 
sive to  be  broached  at  this  stage  of  the  discussion.  Enough 
that  the  keenest  exegetes  are  quite  unable  to  agree  upon  the 
exposition  of  the  whole  passage  under  consideration,  opposing 
one  another  at  every  point ;  that  they  fail  one  and  all  to  do 
any  adequate  justice  to  the  solemnity  and  sublimity  of  the 
wide-circling  thought  of  the  author  ;  and  that  the  evident 
general  reference,  lying  on  the  open  hand,  is  to  the  secrecy 
and  mystery  with  which  the  early  doctrine  was  taught  in 
graded  classes  of  catechumens. 

61.  Similar,  too,  seem  to  be  the  allusions  in  the  Pastoral 
letters:  "O  Timothy,  guard  the  deposit"  (i  Tim.  vi,  20); 
and  again,  "Guard  the  good  deposit"   (2  Tim.  i,  14);  and 


"ESOTERISM"  IN  THE  GOSPEL  43 

again,  "  I  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  guard  my  deposit 
unto  that  day"  (2  Tim.  i,  12).  At  the  time  of  the  composi- 
tion of  these  Pastorals  the  propaganda  had  indeed  long  been 
preached  more  or  less  publicly ;  nevertheless,  naturally 
enough  the  old  forms  of  speech  appear  to  have  been  still 
maintained. 

62.  Far  more  convincing,  however,  is  the  manifest  force 
of  the  remarkable  deliverance  (Matthew  x,  26,  27)  :  '*  For 
nought  is  covered  that  shall  not  be  revealed,  and  hidden  that 
shall  not  be  known.  What  I  tell  you  in  the  darkness,  speak 
ye  in  the  light ;  and  what  ye  hear  in  the  ear,  proclaim  upon 
the  housetops."  All  possibility  of  doubt  is  here  finally  and 
for  ever  excluded.  Zahn  and  Holtzmann  both  recognise  the 
reference  to  secret  instruction,  but  apparently  without  feeling 
its  significance.  Zahn  devotes  about  thirty  pages,  about 
thirteen  hundred  and  fifty  lines,  to  "  The  Co-operation  of  the 
Disciples,"  ix,  35-xi,  i,  forty-seven  verses,  nearly  twenty- 
seven  lines  per  verse.  But  to  this  immensely  important 
verse  (27)  he  gives  only  six  lines  of  text,  really  merely 
repeating  the  verse  itself:  "Jesus  must,  in  order  not  to  cut 
short  the  possibility  of  the  efficacy  of  the  Gospel,  practise 
great  reserve,  must  hide  much  from  the  light  of  publicity, 
and  whisper  it  into  the  ears  of  the  disciples.  This  they  were 
— of  course  not  now,  but  in  the  future,  to  which  the  discourse 
from  verse  17  on  refers — to  speak  out  and  preach  in  full 
publicity."  Such  is  the  comment  of  this  orthodox  exegete  ! 
One  may  well  wonder  what  could  have  been  the  ''  much " 
that  Jesus  taught  by  ''whisper  in  the  ear,"  whereof  we  hear 
not  the  faintest  hint  "in  the  future,"  neither  in  the  first  nor 
in  any  following  century.  But  verse  26  fares  far  worse  at 
Zahn's  dexterous  hands  :  "  But  at  the  same  time  also  the 
hostility  towards  Jesus  and  his  disciples,  now  still  possible 
only  because  of  the  concealment  of  the  coming  kingdom  of 
heaven,  will  be  brought  to  light,  convicted,  and  condemned 
for  its  falseness  and  untenability."  Here  the  reference  of  the 
hidden  and  covered,  which  is  manifestly  the  same  as  in 
verse  27 — namely,  to  the  secret  new  doctrine — is  turned 
away  to  the  hostility  of  the  world,  an  utterly  impossible 
reference,  as  appears  doubly  clear  on  comparing  the  parallel 
in  Mark  iv,  21-23,  already  discussed.     Holtzmann,  one  of  the 


44  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

sanest  of  all  critics,  merely  speaks  of  '*  the  passage  of  the 
truth  from  the  narrower  into  the  wider  circle."  Both  these 
treatments,  if  such  they  may  be  called,  merely  exhibit  the 
despair  of  exegesis.  The  passages  cannot  be  explained  on 
the  ordinary  suppositions,  and  yet  their  meaning  is  trans- 
parent. They  voice  the  argument  of  the  eager  and  enthusiastic 
party,  who  were  urging  the  open  proclamation  of  the  cult, 
against  the  more  timid  policy  of  the  conservatives,  who  still 
would  continue  to  develop  it  in  secrecy.  Of  course,  there 
were  two  such  parties  in  the  Kingdom  ;  there  will  always  be 
progressives  and  stationaries  while  human  nature  remains 
what  it  is. 

63.  At  this  point  in  the  Gospels  the  progressives  have 
got  the  floor.  But  the  others  also  make  themselves  heard. 
In  Matthew  xi,  12  we  read  :  "  But  from  the  days  of  John  the 
Baptist  until  now  the  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence, 
and  men  of  violence  take  it  by  force."  These  words  have 
been  a  standing  puzzle  to  commentators,  ancient  as  well  as 
modern,  who  often  *'  slip  away  over  it  lightly  without 
touching";  and  nothing  better  seems  to  have  been  said 
than  Wetstein's  word  concerning  these  Stormers  :  "  I  under- 
stand them,  therefore,  to  be  publicans  and  soldiers."  Zahn 
admits  :  "  The  movement  of  thought  must,  to  be  sure,  remain 
dark  as  long  as  we  retain  the  ordinary  passive  meaning  of 
/Bm^trat  [vim patttur,  cogitur].^^  Hence,  "  jSm^crat  must  rather 
have  the  very  common  intransitive  sense  of  use  power,  press 
forward  or  press  in  with  power,^^  '*  With  power  like  a 
storm-wind'  it  comes  upon  us,  with  might  it  bursts  in." 
Certainly,  ^idt^irai  often  means  as  much  ;  but  Holtzmann  is 
right  in  declaring,  "  the  medial  signification,  possible  in  itself, 
is  wrecked  on  the  explanatory  clause,  '  the  men  of  violence 
take  it  by  force.'"  Such  has  always  been  the  verdict  of 
common  sense,  which  even  Zahn  defies  in  vain.  But  he  is 
right  in  holding  the  movement  of  thought  then  to  be  obscure, 
and  Weizsacker  is  justified  in  throwing  the  whole  verse 
into   parenthesis.     However,   in  the  light  of  the  foregoing 

^  It  is  the  "  Kingdom  "  of  which  Zahn  is  speaking- !— the  same  King^dom 
that  grows  stilly  and  steadily  as  the  mustard  plant,  invisibly  as  the  hidden 
leaven,  the  Kingdom  that  "  cometh  not  with  observation."  Herein  the  New 
World  we  find  it  discreet  to  observe  these  "  storm-winds  "  rather  carefully. 


CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  45 

discussion  it  does  not  seem  very  dark.  The  violent  seem  to 
be  the  progressives,  who  insisted  on  immediate  proclamation 
of  the  Kingdom,  on  coming  boldly  into  the  open,  instead  of 
any  longer  maintaining  the  old  policy  of  secrecy.  A  powerful 
representative  of  this  radical  party  might  have  been  John  the 
Baptist ;  and  the  conservative  seems  rather  to  complain  that 
since  John's  day  the  radicals  are  overmastering  the  Kingdom, 
are  obtaining  the  upper  hand.  However  this  may  be,  one 
thing  appears  now  made  perfectly  clear — namely,  that  the 
original  propaganda  was  a  secret  one,  that  it  was  whispered 
into  the  ear  long  before  it  was  proclaimed  on  the  housetops. 

64.  It  remains  only  to  add  that  this  secrecy  was  main- 
tained in  some  measure  for  many  years,  for  generations  even. 
Especially  in  the  Gnostic  portions  of  the  New  Testament  we 
meet  with  the  word  mystery;  and  in  the  Twin  Epistles, 
Ephesians  and  Colossians,  it  is  found  six  and  four  times 
respectively.  In  the  refutations  of  the  heresiographers  we 
find  the  Gnostics  dealing  continually  in  mysteries  and  secret 
lore.  It  seems  superfluous  to  make  references,  but  it  may  be 
permitted  to  quote  Epiphanius  {Hcer.  Ixii,  2)  concerning  the 
"  so-called  Egyptian  Gospel  "  :  "  For  in  it  many  such  things 
are  reported  as  in  a  corner,  mysterywise,  from  countenance 
of  the  Saviour."  Also  in  the  Gospel  (John  xix,  38)  we  read 
of  one  Joseph,  who  was  a  disciple,  but  secretly,  for  fear  of  the 
Jews.  Even  in  so  late  an  author  as  Origen  may  be  found 
many  references  to  the  secret  worship  and  the  *'  mysteries  "  of 
the  Christians.  Thus,  in  C.  Cels.  iii,  59:  ''Then,  and  not 
till  then,  we  invite  them  to  our  mysteries  {r^Xira^),  For  we 
speak  wisdom  among  the  perfect  (reXatotc)." 

CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

65.  We  are  now  brought  face  to  face  with  a  question  of 
vital  interest  and  importance  :  Why,  then,  was  this  Jesus-cult 
originally  secret,  and  expressed  in  such  guarded  parabolic 
terms  as  made  it  unintelligible  to  the  multitude  ?  To  answer 
this  we  must  first  propound  and  answer  another  query,  even 
more  significant  and  fundamental  :  What  was  the  essence, 
the  central  idea  and  active  principle,  of  the  cult  itself? 
To   this    latter  we    answer    directly   and    immediately ;    It 


46  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

was  a  Protest  against  Idolatry  ;  it  was  a  Crusade  for  Mono- 
theism» 

66.  The  proofs  of  this  last  proposition  are  various  and 
abundant.  The  one  that  first  impressed  the  mind  of  the 
writer  is  found  in  a  consideration  of  the  general  spirit  of  the 
apologists.  Consider,  for  instance,  Athenagoras — 177  a.d.  (?) 
— who  seems  to  represent  Christian  apology  at  its  best.  Of 
what  does  his  plea  consist?  Practically  of  an  assault  upon 
the  prevailing  polytheism.  After  three  or  four  pages  of 
introduction,  in  which  he  protests  against  the  condemnation 
of  Christians  for  the  mere  name,  Athenagoras  proceeds  to 
answer  the  charges  brought  against  them,  of  which  he 
mentions  three — atheism,  Thyestean  banquets,  CEdipodean 
intercourse.  He  then  advances  to  an  elaborate  refutation  of 
the  first,  showing  that  Christian  doctrine  does  acknowledge 
one  God,  who  has  made  all  things  through  the  Logos  ;  that 
poets  and  philosophers  alike  testify  to  this  unity  of  the  God- 
head, to  which  Christians  add  the  witness  of  the  prophets ; 
that  polytheism  is  intrinsically  absurd,  as  attested  by  these 
Hebrew  prophets  ;  that  Christians  cannot  be  atheists,  since 
they  acknowledge  one  God,  increate,  eternal,  invisible, 
impassible,  incomprehensible,  illimitable,  etc.,  who  has 
created  the  universe  through  his  Logos,  also  called  his  Son 
for  good  reasons  ;  who  admit  also  the  Holy  Spirit,  effluent 
from  and  recurrent  to  God  like  a  ray  of  the  sun.  He  further 
shows  that  the  moral  maxims  and  practice  of  Christians, 
particularly  as  to  enemies,  confute  the  charge  of  atheism;  and 
he  explains  why  they  offer  no  sacrifice  to  God  the  Framer  of 
the  Universe.  He  then  explains  why  Christians  cannot 
worship  the  local  gods,  like  others,  who  do  not  distinguish 
God  from  matter,  and  why  they  cannot  worship  the  Universe; 
He  then  comes  to  closer  attack  upon  the  gods,  showing  their 
names  and  images  to  be  recent ;  that  they  are  themselves 
creatures,  as  the  poets  confess  ;  that  the  representations  of 
them  are  absurd  ;  that  the  poets  describe  them  as  gross  and 
impure  ;  that  the  physical  interpretations  of  the  myths  are 
vain,  since  in  any  case  such  nature-processes  are  not  gods  ; 
and  then  he  criticises  Thales  and  Plato  (and  pseudo-Plato). 
He  then  discourses  at  length  of  demons,  whom  he  regards  as 
the  active  principles  in  idolatry.     "  They  who  draw  men  to 


CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  47 

idols,  then,  are  the  aforesaid  demons,  who  are  eager  for  the 
blood  of  sacrifices,  and  lick  them  ;  but  the  gods  that  please 
the  multitude,  and  whose  names  are  given  to  the  images, 
were  men,  as  may  be  learned  from  their  history.  And  that 
it  is  the  demons  that  act  under  their  name  is  proved  by  the 
nature  of  their  operations."  He  amplifies  this  doctrine  of  the 
allurement  of  demons  to  idolatry,  and  insists  that  the  names 
of  gods  were  derived  from  men,  and  calls  the  poets  to  witness, 
and  finally  attempts  to  show  why  divinity  was  ascribed  to 
men,  concluding  that  "  we  are  not  atheists,  since  we  acknow- 
ledge God  the  Maker  of  this  Universe,  and  his  Logos."  In 
six  or  seven  pages  he  then  briefly  refutes  the  other  two 
charges.  So,  then,  almost  precisely  three-fourths  of  this 
plea  (chs.  iv-xxx)  is  consecrated  to  an  attack  on  polytheism 
and  a  defence  of  Christian  monotheism,  the  remaining  one- 
fourth  being  given  up  to  prologue  (chs.  i-iii),  minor  charges, 
and  epilogue  (chs.  xxxi-xxxvi).  Virtually  the  whole  argument 
is  occupied  with  monotheism  versus  polytheism.  Most  note- 
worthy is  it  that  there  is  no  mention  or  remote  hint  of  any 
New  Testament  history.  There  are  repeated  assonances  to 
the  Gospels  (as  to  Matthew  v,  46  ;  Luke  vi,  32-34  ;  Matthew 
V,  44,  45  ;  Luke  vi,  27,  28  ;  Matthew  v,  28  ;  Matthew  xxii,  39  ; 
Matthew  xix,  9)  ;  but,  strangely,  the  only  sign  of  citation  is 
says  {(l^nm),  where  the  understood  subject  is  the  Logos  ;  for 
once  it  stands  :  "  For  again  the  Logos  says  to  us,  *  If  anyone 
kiss  a  second  time  because  it  has  given  him  pleasure,  [he 
sins]';  adding,  'Therefore,  the  kiss,  or  rather  the  salutation, 
should  be  given  with  the  greatest  care,  since,  if  there  be 
mixed  with  it  the  least  defilement  of  thought,  it  excludes  us 
from  eternal  life.'"  The  word  ''again"  shows  that  in  the 
previous  quotation  in  the  same  chapter  the  understood 
subject  of  the  says  {(^ricri)  was  the  same  Logos.  Evidently 
the  apologist  has  drawn  from  fountains  unknown  to  us.  The 
Christianity  of  Athenagoras  appears  in  this  plea  to  consist 
practically  of  a  philosophic  monotheism  tempered  with  some 
familiar  theories.  Stoic  and  other,  about  the  Logos  and  the 
Spirit,  and  with  some  acquaintance  with  old-Christian 
literature. 

67.  Turn  now  to  the  Apology  and  Acts  of  Apollonius^  who 
is  supposed  to  have  suffered  about  a.d.   185.     The  story  is 


48  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

nearly  the  same  ;  his  answers  to  the  Prefect  are  mainly  a 
bold  attack  on  the  prevailing-  idolatry.  But  he  adds  that 
"The  Logos  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  souls  and  of  bodies, 
became  man  in  Judea  and  fulfilled  all  righteousness,"  etc. 
He  adds  also  the  invaluable  verse  40  :  "  But  also  one  of  the 
Greek  philosophers  said  :  The  just  man  shall  be  tortured, 
he  shall  be  spat  upon,  and  last  of  all  he  shall  be  crucified." 
The  reference  is,  of  course,  to  Plato  i^Rep.  II,  361  d),  and 
shows  clearly  that  this  passage  was  in  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness that  wrought  out  the  story  of  the  Passion.  The 
liberal  critic  does  not  hesitate,  when  he  finds  something  done 
"  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet," 
to  interpret  these  words  strictly  ;  to  declare  that  the  incident 
was  invented  to  fulfil  the  prophecy.  Precisely  so  here  we 
have  a  prophecy  by  the  greatest  of  the  Greek  seers,  and  the 
incident  framed  to  fulfil  it.  It  is  noteworthy  that,  according 
to  Harnack,  no  other  reference  to  this  celebrated  passage  is 
found  in  old-Christian  literature.^  Why?  Because  Christians 
were  not  familiar  with  it?  Impossible.  The  silence  of  the 
Christians  was  intentional,  and  the  reason  is  obvious.  The 
passage  was  tell-tale.  Similarly  we  are  to  understand  their 
silence  about  the  pre-Christian  Nasarenes  and  many  other 
lions  that  were  safest  when  asleep. 

68.  We  return  from  this  important  digression  to  the 
Apologies.  Consider  now  that  of  Aristides,  famous  in 
antiquity,  as  witnessed  in  many  ways — by  its  use  in  Barlaam 
and  Josaphat,  its  apparent  use  by  Celsus  and  by  Justin,  and 
by  the  mention  of  it  by  Eusebius  in  Hist,  Eccl,  and  in  Chron, 
Here  the  case  is  even  more  evident.  In  this  apparently 
earliest  Apology  there  is  virtually  nothing  but  a  most  elaborate 
attack  upon  the  whole  system  of  ancient  polytheism,  of 
Barbarians  and  Greeks,  and,  most  remarkably,  even  of  the 

Jews. 

The  Jews  then  say  that  God  Is  one,  creator  of  all  and  almighty  ; 
and  that  it  is  not  proper  for  us  that  anything  else  should  be 
worshipped,  but  this  God  only.  And  in  this  they  appear  to  be  much 
nearer  to  the  truth  than  all  the  peoples,  in  that  they  worship  God 

'  But  it  seems  to  have  been  in  the  mind  of  James,  who  says  (v,  6)  :  "  Ye 
condemned,  ye  murdered,  the  Just  ;  he  resists  you  not ";  and  of  Justin,  when 
he  says  {Dial.  i6  b)  :  *'  Ye  slew  the  Just  One."  This  title,  "  the  Just,"  seems 
to  hark  back  to  the  Republic^  but  may  have  been  transferred  from  Israel. 


CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  49 

more  exceedingly,  and  not  his  works Nevertheless  they,  too,  have 

g-one  astray  from  accurate  knowledge,  and  they  suppose  in  their 
minds  that  they  are  serving  God  ;  but  in  the  methods  of  their  actions 
their  service  is  to  angels,  and  not  to  God,  in  that  they  observe 
Sabbaths  and  new  moons,  and  the  Passover,  and  the  great  fast,  and 
the  fast,  and  circumcision,  and  cleanness  of  meats,  which  things  not 
even  thus  have  they  perfectly  observed. 

Amazingly  the  Christian  Aristides  attacks  the  Jews  as  not 
being  yet  quite  monotheistic  enough  !     He  continues  : — 

Now  the  Christians,  O  King,  by  going  about  and  seeking,  have 
found  the  truth  ;  and,  as  we  have  comprehended  from  their  writings, 
they  are  nearer  to  the  truth  and  to  exact  knowledge  than  the  rest  of 
the  peoples.  For  they  know  and  believe  in  God,  the  Maker  of 
heaven  and  earth,  in  whom  are  all  things  and  from  whom  are  all 
things  ;  he  who  has  no  other  God  as  his  fellow  ;  from  whom  they 
have  received  those  Commandments,  etc. 

There  is  no  reference  in  aught  that  follows  or  in  the  whole 
Apology  to  the  New  Testament  or  to  the  evangelic  life  of 
Jesus.  ^ 

69.  There  is,  indeed,  a  so-called  Christologic  passage, 
which  varies  so  widely  in  the  Greek,  Syriac,  and  Latin 
versions  that  little  confidence  can  be  put  in  any  of  the  text 
forms.     We  may  metaphrase  the  Greek  thus  : — 

\  But  the  Christians  are  descended  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     But 

this,  the  Son  of  the  .God  the  Most  High,  is  confessed  in  [by]  Holy 
Spirit  [as]  from  heaven  descended  for  the  salvation  of  men  and  of  a 
virgin  holy  born,  both  inseminally  and  Incorruptibly,  flesh  assumed 
and  appeared  plain  to  men,  in  order  that  from  the  polytheistic 
error  he  might  recall  them.  And  having  fulfilled  his  wondrous  dis- 
pensation, by  a  cross  death  he  tasted  by  voluntary  counsel  according 
to  mighty  dispensation  ;  and  after  three  days  he  came  back  to  life 
and  into  heavens  ascended.  Of  whom  the  fame  of  the  Parousy  from 
the  (among  them  so-called)  Evangelic  Holy  Scripture  it  is  possible 
for  thee  to  know,  O  King,  if  thou  light  thereon.  This  one  had 
twelve  disciples  who,  after  his  ascent  into  [the]  heavens,  went  out 
into  the  eparchies  of  the  habitable  [earth]  and  taught  his  greatness, 

^  It  is  worth  remark  that  the  Greek  text  indeed  declares,  "  The  Jews 
betrayed  to  Pilate,"  but  not  the  Syriac.  That  the  Greek  text  has  suffered  at 
this  point  seems  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  it  has  been  transferred  to 
chap,  xiv  from  its  proper  position  in  chap.  ii.  It  appears  likewise  plain  that 
in  the  Syriac  the  original  description  of  the  Christians  consisted  of  the  single 
first  sentence,  as  in  the  parallel  descriptions  of  Barbarians,  Gentiles,  and  Jews. 
The  following  christologic  passage  looks  like  an  afterthought.  But  the  text- 
critical  question  is  too  intricate  for  discussion  here.  Compare  the  thorough 
work  of  Geffcken,  Zwei gnechische  Apologeten. 

E 


50  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

even  as  one  of  them  went  round  these  lands  of  ours  preaching-  the 
dogma  of  the  truth.  Whence  those  still  yet  ministering  to  the 
righteousness  of  their  preaching  are  called  Christians. 

70.  Critics  discern  in  this  important  passage  the  begin- 
nings of  a  creed,  the  Apostolicum.  We  are  concerned  only 
with  two  or  three  observations.  First,  the  use  of  the  word 
bfioXoyuTai  (is  confessed,  allowed,  admitted).  The  writer 
seems  conscious  that  he  is  not  affirming  an  historic  fact,  but 
merely  something  that  is  agreed  on  or  granted — a  kind  of 
postulate  of  faith.  Similarly  in  the  Syriac  version  it  reads  : 
''  And  u  is  said  that  God  came  down  from  heaven  and  from 
a  Hebrew  virgin  took  and  clad  himself  in  flesh";  whereas 
in  the  later  Armenian  and  Latin  versions  all  this  is  declared 
as  fact — there  is  no  such  modification  as  "  it  is  said "  or 
''confessed."  Secondly,  we  note  the  unequivocal  statement 
of  the  reasons  for  the  incarnation  and  manifestation  of  this 
Son  of  God  the  Most  High  :  In  order  that  from  the  polytheistic 
error  he  might  recall  them.^  Such,  then,  seems  to  have  been 
the  original  conception  of  the  mission  of  the  Jesus  or  the 
Jesus-cult — namely,  the  overthrow  of  idolatry ^  as  even  Origen 
much  later  attests  scores  of  times.^  Very  characteristically, 
we  find  precisely  these  words  omitted  from  the  later  Syriac, 
Armenian,  and  Latin  versions.  They  told  their  story  too 
plainly.  Thirdly,  the  term  •' Parousy,"  ordinarily  taken  to 
mean  the  "  second  "  coming,  is  here  properly  used  of  the  one 
presence  of  the  Jesus  in  the  flesh,  as  detailed  in  the  Gospels. 
The  ''  second  "  coming  is  a  later  fancy.  Fourthly,  "  Through- 
out this  great  Christological  passage  it  is  worth  noting  how 
the  actual  phrases  of  the  New  Testament  are  not  introduced  " 
(J.  Armitage  Robinson,  p.  84). 

71.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  testimony  of  this 
Apology,  dating  apparently  from  ''  the  early  years  of  the 
reign  of  Antoninus  Pius  "  (Harris),  is  strongly  and  unam- 
biguously in  favour  of  our  thesis,  that  the  prime  movement 
of  the  propaganda  was  distinctly  and  especially  against  the 
prevailing  polytheism. 

72.  What  now  says  the  Martyr?  Two  Apologies  go 
under  his  name,  apparently  modelled  in  a  measure  on  others 

^  Sttws  iK  TTJs  TToXvdeov  TrXdfrjs  avToi>s  avaKokicrrjTaL. 
^  Still  later,  Lactantius.     See  p.  38,  footnote. 


CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  51 

that  preceded,  as  that  of  Aristides.  These  Apologies  speak 
of  a  great  variety  of  matters  in  rather  disorderly  fashion. 
The  plane  of  intelligence  is  sensibly  lower  than  in  the  pleas 
of  Aristides  and  Athenagoras.  Great  attention  is  given  to 
a  very  fantastic  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament  in  support  of 
the  Christian  doctrines  championed.  The  general  position 
of  Justin  is  that  the  Old  Testament  prefigures  the  Christian 
dispensation  in  a  thousand  ways,  and  that  all  of  it  has  been 
or  will  be  fulfilled  or  repeated  in  Christian  history.  "Since, 
then,  all  things  that  have  already  happened  we  proved  to 
have  been  predicted  by  the  prophets  before  they  happened, 
it  is  necessary  also  concerning  the  things  similarly  predicted 
but  yet  going  to  happen  to  have  faith  that  surely  they  will 
happen.  For  in  what  way  the  things  that  have  ,  already 
happened,  having  been  predicted  and  being  unknown,  came 
to  pass,  in  the  same  way  also  the  rest,  even  though  they  be 
unknown  and  disbelieved,  shall  come  to  pass "  (i,  52).  Of 
course,  we  cannot  dwell  on  any  such  theory.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  observe  that  Justin  does  not  fail  to  attack 
idolatry  vigorously,  and  that  he  states  explicitly  that  the 
mission  of  the  Jesus  was  "for  the  sake  of  believing  men,  and 
for  the  destruction  of  demons"  (ii,  6).  Inasmuch  as  his 
witness  on  this  and  other  points  is  elsewhere  discussed 
minutely  in  this  volume,  it  may  be  passed  over  here  with 
the  general  observation  that  it  accords  with  the  thesis  we 
are  defending. 

73.  We  pass  now  to  the  Exhortation  of  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  (Aoyoc  TrpoTpeirTiKog  Trpog  "EXXr}vag),  and  we  find  it  con- 
sists almost  entirely  of  a  rather  wordy  but  withal  eloquent 
protest  against  Greek  polytheism  and  a  recommendation  to 
accept  in  its  stead  the  worship  of  the  one  God  and  his  Logos, 
which  is  evidently  only  an  aspect  of  God.  We  note  particularly 
the  mission  of  his  "Song":  "But  not  such  my  song,  that 
comes  to  loose  and  that  not  slowly  the  bitter  bondage  of  the 
tyrannising  demons,  and  as  leading  us  back  to  the  mild  and 
man-loving  yoke  of  the  worship  of  God  (tyiq  ^soo-ejScmc),  again 
to  heaven  recalls  those  that  to  earth  had  been  prostrated 
(Ippilifxhovo).''  Note  carefully  the  Greek  word,  for  it  is 
precisely  that  used  by  Matthew  (ix,  36)  to  describe  the 
forlorn  condition  of  the  Galilean  multitude  likened  to  harassed 


52  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

sheep.  Clement  here  employs  it  to  describe  the  condition  of 
the  Greeks,  led  away  by  their  poets  to  the  degrading  worship 
of  "idols,"  of  ''blocks  of  wood  and  stone" — i.e.^  "statues 
and  images";  and  so  subjected  to  the  "yoke  of  extremest 
bondage"  "of  the  tyrannising  demons."  It  is  needless  to 
pursue  this  thought  further.  Clement's  testimony  is  the 
strongest  possible — that  he  considered  Christianity,  at  least 
the  original  Christian  movement,  as  a  Crusade,  as  a  Holy 
War,  against  the  stupefying  idolatry  of  the  Empire,  conceived 
as  the  worship  of  demons.  This  was  the  very  essence  of  his 
conception.  The  doctrine  of  the  Logos  was  with  him  far 
from  unimportant,  but  it  was  secondary,  and  disturbed  his 
monotheism  no  more  than  the  same  doctrine  disturbed  the 
monotheism  of  Philo.  How  absolutely  Clement  identifies' 
Jesus,  the  Word,  and  the  Christ  (as  mere  aspects)  with 
Deity  is  vividly  shown  in  this  sentence  :  "  Now  John,  the 
herald  of  the  Logos,  for  this  cause  exhorted  to  become  ready 
for  God's  the  Christ's  Parousy  (aic  ^£ou  tov  xpkttov  irapovaiav),'' 
Of  course,  he  also  speaks  of  this  eternal  Logos  as  having 
appeared  to  men  and  even  as  "become  man."  Remarkable 
is  his  expression  :  "  Verily  I  say,  the  Logos,  the  Logos  of 
God,  having  become  man  {vai  (pr^jULL  6  Aojoq  6  tov  deov  avOpioirog 
jEvoniEvog),*^  This  is  mentioned  merely  to  show  that  we  are 
not  suppressing  nor  neglecting  (though  not  discussing)  the 
Christology  of  Clement — not  that  it  bears  on  our  argument. 

74.  We  pass  now  to  the  celebrated  Octaviiis  of  Minucius 
Felix,  written  at  latest  before  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
The  testimony  of  this  Ciceronian  dialogue  is  as  full  and 
explicit  as  the  most  exacting  could  desire.  The  reasoning 
by  which  Cascilius  is  converted  is  virtually  nothing  but  a  plea 
for  the  purest  monotheism  as  opposed  to  the  prevalent  poly- 
theism. This  monotheism  is  affirmed  and  re-affirmed,  is 
urged  and  re-urged,  in  the  strongest  possible  terms.  Of 
course,  it  was  necessary  to  repel  the  slanders  current  in 
regard  to  the  morals  and  worship  of  the  Christians,  to  wash 

^  For  similar  bold  identifications  of  these  Ideas  and  Beings  compare  Col.  ii,  2, 
"unto  full  knowledg-e  of  the  mystery  of  (the)  God  Christ  (roO  Beoxi  xpto-rou)"  ; 

Titus  ii,  13,  "looking-  unto  the appearing  o{  our  great  God  and  Saviour 

Jesus  Christ";  Jude  25,  "to  (the)  only  God  our  Saviour."  So,  too,  Clement 
himself,  referring  to  Psalms  xxxiv,  8,  quotes  Paul  as  pleading  :  "  Taste  and 
see  that  Christ  is  God  (5x4  xP^(^Tbs  6  deds)." 


CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  53 

away  the  stain  of  Cascilius'  bitter  reproaches  in  the  waters  of 
truth  ;  but  this  flat  denial  cuts  no  great  figure  in  the  discus- 
sion. It  is  on  the  Christian  monotheism  as  against  the 
absurd  and  degrading  Pagan  polytheism  that  the  whole 
high  argument  turns.     "  Nor  seek  a  name  for  God,  for  God 

is  his  name for  God,  who  is  alone,  God  is  the  one  and 

only  name  (Nee  nomen  Deo  quaeras  :  Deus  nomen  est 

Deo,  qui  solus  est,  Dei  vocabulum  totum  est)."  Referring 
to  the  fact  that  the  people  in  prayer  say  merely  "God,"  he 
asks :  "  Is  that  the  natural  speech  of  the  people,  or  the 
formula  of  the  confessing  Christian?  (Vulgi  iste  naturalis 
sermo  est,  an  Christiani  confitentis  oratio?)"  ''Therefore 
neither  from  dead  men  (do)  Gods  (arise),  since  God  cannot 
die,  nor  from  men  born,  since  all  dies  that  is  born  :  divine, 
however,  is  that  which  has  no  rising  nor  setting."  Enough. 
Octavius  is  a  pure  monotheist,  nothing  less  and  nothing 
more.  He  fights  the  battle  of  Christianity  as  the  battle  of 
the  One  God  against  the  many  gods  of  Rome.  He  never 
hints  at  any  New  Testament  story,  nor  even  at  an  incipient 
creed  or  Apostolic  symbol.  And  with  such  weapons,  and 
only  such,  he  converts  the  polytheist  Cascilius.  It  seems 
impossible  there  should  be  a  more  exact  proof  of  our  funda- 
mental thesis. 

75.  If  now  we  turn  to  Tatian's  Address  to  Greeks^  to 
Justin's  Exhortation  to  Greeks^  to  the  three  books  of  Theo- 
philus  to  Autolycus,  we  find  one  and  the  same  story,  the 
one  already  so  often  repeated.  It  would  be  wearisome  and 
superfluous  to  dwell  on  these,  but  it  is  interesting  to  note 
Tatian's  account  of  his  own  conversion  (c.  29).  It  was 
effected  not  at  all,  as  we  should  imagine,  by  preaching  of  the 
cross  and  of  the  incomparable  life  in  Galilee,  but  by  study  of 
certain  "  barbaric  scriptures "  (Jewish),  containing  among 
prophecies  and  excellent  precepts  the  "  Declaration  of  the 
Government  of  the  universe  as  centred  in  one  Being," 
scriptures  that  "put  an  end  to  the  slavery  that  is  in  the 
world,  and  rescue  us  from  a  multiplicity  of  rulers  and  ten 
thousand  tyrants" — these  are,  of  course,  the  "tyrannising 
demons"  of  Clement,  the  divinities  of  the  pagan  world,  as 
Tatian  repeatedly  affirms.  Quite  similarly  was  Theophilus 
converted,  according  to  his  own  account  (Bk.  i,  c.  14),  nor 


54  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

can  we  think  of  Justin's  conversion  as  different.  One  or  two 
phrases  from  Theophilus  are  worth  quoting.  Of  God  he  says  : 
**  If  I  call  him  Logos,  I  name  but  his  sovereignty."  Again  : 
*'  Entrust  yourself  to  the  Physician,  and  he  will  couch  the  eyes 
of  your  soul  and  of  your  heart.  Who  is  the  Physician  ?  God, 
who  heals  and  makes  alive  through  his  word  and  wisdom." 

76.  Up  to  this  point  the  testimony  of  Origen,  as  being 
considerably  later  (a.d.  250),  has  not  been  mentioned.  But 
it  is  altogether  too  important  to  be  omitted.  In  his  work 
Against  Celsus^  on  the  whole  the  ablest  Apology  for 
Christianity  ever  published,  he  presents  the  case  in  every 
aspect  that  offered  itself  to  his  extraordinarily  comprehensive 
and  wide-ranging  intelligence.  Yet  nowhere  does  he  betray 
any  consciousness  of  the  modern  point  of  view,  nowhere 
does  he  advance  the  human  personality  of  Jesus  to  the  front, 
nowhere  does  he  ground  any  argument  upon  its  uniqueness 
or  even  its  superiority.  But  everywhere  he  stresses  the  sole 
rationality  of  monotheism,  everywhere  he  is  arguing  against 
the  error  of  polytheism,  everywhere  he  is  contending  that 
the  heathen  gods  are  demons,  that  idolatry  is  demon-worship, 
to  overthrow  which  and  to  lead  humanity  back  to  the  one 
true  God  is  the  especial  and  peculiar  mission  of  Jesus  and 
the  Jesus-cult.  Repeatedly  he  quotes  the  Septuagint  version 
of  Ps.  xcvi,  5  :  '■'  For  all  the  gods  of  the  heathen  are  demons." 
In  iv,  32  he  speaks  of  Jesus  as  "having  overthrown  the 
doctrine  about  demons  on  earth  ";  in  vii,  17  he  sees  "•  pledges 
of  the  demolition  of  the  devil  in  those  who,  through  the 
coming  of  Jesus,  are  everywhere  escaping  from  the  demons 
holding  them  down,  and  through  deliverance  from  bondage 
under  demons  have  dedicated  themselves  to  God,  etc."  Quid 
multa?  That  Origen  conceived  of  Christianity  and  the 
mission  of  Jesus  as  primarily  intended  to  recall  the  heathen 
world  from  the  great  error  and  disease  of  the  demon- worship 
of  polytheism  back  to  the  faith  and  service  of  the  one  true 
God,  is  superfluously  manifest  in  every  book  and  almost  in 
every  chapter  of  this  chief  of  all  Apologies. 

77.  Herewith,  then,  we  close  the  argument  derived  from 
the  Apologists.'    It  seems  hardly  possible  to  imagine  it  more 

*  Their  testimony  might,  indeed,  be  produced  at  much  greater  length  ;  but 
no  attempt  is  here  made  to  present  it  fully. 


CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  55 

cogent,  more  explicit,  more  self-consistent,  more  absolutely 
demonstrative.  We  must  remember  that  the  Apologists  are 
not  arguing  with  one  another,  not  speaking  a  tongue  that 
outsiders  might  not  easily  understand  ;  but  are  reasoning 
with  the  heathen  around  them,  and  hence  must  be  using 
such  arguments  as  were  common  in  the  great  controversy, 
must  be  presenting  the  staple  proofs  of  the  Christians  in 
their  high  debate  with  pagandom.  We  may  affirm,  then, 
with  the  highest  degree  of  certainty  attainable  in  such  matters, 
that  the  central  and  essential  demonstration  of  the  Christian 
was  a  vivid  exhibition  of  the  colossal  absurdity  of  polytheism 
and  a  powerful  appeal  to  the  immanent  monotheistic  (monistic) 
instinct  in  every  man. 

78.  On  the  negative  side  the  silence  of  the  Apologist  is 
profoundly  impressive.  He  tells  absolutely  nothing  what- 
ever oi  the  beautiful  pure  human  life  in  Galilee  and  Judasa; 
not  a  single  incident  has  he  to  mention,  not  a  single  argu- 
ment, not  a  single  illustration,  not  a  single  exhortation,  not 
a  single  suggestion — not  a  single  motive  has  he  drawn  from 
that  incomparable  life  that  is  supposed  to  have  hallucinated 
the  disciples  and  even  the  slaughter-breathing  Saul.  The 
modern  minister,  even  the  modern  critic,  at  the  distance  of 
nineteen  hundred  years,  fills  all  the  buckets  of  his  discourse 
from  this  clear-flowing,  exhaustless  well  of  the  Jesus- 
personality  and  the  Jesus-life.  But  the  ancient  Apologist 
under  the  Antonines,  before  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament 
was  formed,  in  debate  with  kings  and  emperors  and  philo- 
sophers and  the  intimates  of  his  own  circle,  knows  nothing 
whatever  of  this  fountain.  He  draws  never  a  drop  from  its 
waters  ;  often  he  does  not  allude  to  it  even  remotely.  Almost 
it  would  seem  to  exist  for  him,  if  at  all,  only  as  an  esoteric 
and  not  as  an  exoteric  doctrine.  We  do  indeed  find  a  few 
scant  allusions  to  certain  dogmas  that  were  ''confessed,"  but 
these  are  all  of  more  or  less  metempirical  nature,  like  the 
"mystery"  in  i  Tim.  iii,  16;  we  find  no  recognition  what- 
ever of  any  such  human  life  as  modern  theology,  both  liberal 
and  orthodox,  lays  at  the  basis  of  its  whole  New  Testament 
theory. 

79.  Against  this  broad-sweeping  averment,  the  vague 
references  (even    if  they  were  far  less  vague)  of  Justin    to 


56  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  cannot  be  called  in  evidence.  We 
have  seen  that  Justin  had  a  theory  according  to  which  the 
Old  Testament  was  an  elaborate  type,  whose  antitype  must 
be  found  in  Christian  history  ;  he  argued  not  from  actuality, 
but  from  necessity  ;  such  and  such  must  have  happened, 
therefore  it  did  happen.^  The  testimony  of  such  a  theory  is 
worth  very  little.  Moreover,  the  text-critical  question  con- 
cerning Justin  is  very  large  and  very  difficult.  The  interpo- 
lations seem  to  be  so  extensive  that  any  argument  drawn 
from  him  alone  must  be  received  with  exceeding  caution. 

80.  We  hold,  then,  that  the  general  state  of  mind  revealed 
in  the  Apologists,  as  shown  in  their  virtually  uniform  method 
of  procedure  in  controversy  with  their  heathen  neighbours,  is 
forever  and  totally  irreconcilable  with  the  theory  of  the  human 
life.  If  these  men  knew  and  accepted  the  Gospel  story  in  its 
literal  sense,  if  they  believed  in  the  human  life  of  Jesus  as  the 
modern  Christian  and  critic  believes  in  it,  then  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  understand  why  they  ignored  it  so  utterly  in 
their  debates  with  their  fellows.  The  full  force  of  this 
argument  cannot  be  brought  home  to  any  man  that  is  not 
acquainted  at  first  hand  with  at  least  one  of  these  apologies. 
No  amount  of  citation  will  suffice.  Let  the  reader,  then,  take 
down  some  one  of  them,  as  Octavius^  and  read  it  through 
carefully,  and  yield  himself  to  the  natural  reaction  ;  he  will 
no  longer  have  any  doubt  of  the  general  correctness  of  the 
propositions  here  maintained. 

81.  We  have  digressed  intentionally  from  the  main  thesis 
— namely,  that  primitive  Christianity  was  essentially  a  revolt 
against  the  gods.  The  argument  from  the  Apologists  may  be 
supplemented  by  a  similar  one  drawn  from  the  Acts  of  the 

;  Apostles,  as,  for  instance,  from  Paul's  speech  on  Mars'  Hill. 
In  this  famous  harangue  the  first  nine  verses  move  precisely 
along  the  lines  of  the  apologists  ;  it  is  nothing  but  nionotheism 
versus  polytheism.  The  tenth  verse  (verse  31)  switches  the 
thought  off  upon  another  track,  and  is  inconsequential  in  its 
present  context.     Says  Holtzmann  (p.  393) :   "  So  also  the 

*  Even  so  keen  and  capacious  a  mind  as  Origen's  g-ave  to  the  argument 
from  prophecy  easily  the  first  place,  and  Chrysostom,  commenting  on  Acts 
ii.  16,  says  none  can  be  more  cogent,  since  it  "  outweighs  even  the  historical 
facts  themselves."     If  these  latter  contradicted,  so  much  the  w^orse  for  them  ! 


CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  57 

discourse  of  Paul  takes  a  sudden  turn  at  verse  31."  As  it 
stands,  it  is  palpably  unhistorical.  This  thought,  however, 
we  need  not  pursue  further  at  this  point,  since  we  have  given 
a  separate  and  elaborate  treatment  of  Acts  (in  a  MS.  not  yet 
published). 

82.  Equally  weighty  are  the  considerations  drawn  from 
the  Gospels  themselves.  In  the  activity  of  the  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  as  there  delineated,  the  one  all-important  moment  is 
the  casting-out  of  demons.     Thus,  in  the  commission  of  the 

apostles  (Mark  iii,  14,  15):  *'And  he  made  Twelve that 

they  might  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth 
to  preach,  and  to  have  authority  to  cast  out  the  demons"; 
(Matthew  x,  i) :  "  And  having  summoned  his  twelve  disciples, 
he  gave  them  authority  over  spirits  unclean,  to  cast  them  out, 
and  to  heal  every  disease  and  every  sickness."  Again,  in 
Luke  X,  17-20,  when  the  seventy  (who  certainly  symbolise 
the  general  mission  to  heathendom)  return  and  joyfully 
exclaim,  *'  Lord,  even  the  demons  are  subject  to  us  in  thy 
name,"  the  answer  is,  ''I  was  beholding  the  Satan  like 
lightning  falling  from  heaven."  It  seems  amazing  that 
anyone  should  hesitate  an  instant  over  the  sense  of  these 
words.  When  we  recall  the  fact  that  the  early  Christians 
uniformly  understood  the  heathen  gods  to  be  demons,  and 
uniformly  represented  the  mission  of  the  Jesus  to  be  the 
overthrow  of  these  demon-gods,  it  seems  as  clear  as  the  sun 
at  noon  that  this  fall  of  Satan  from  heaven  can  be  nothing 
less  (and  how  could  it  possibly  be  anything  more  ?)  than  the 
headlong  ruin  of  polytheism,  the  complete  triumph  of  the 
One  Eternal  God.  It  seems  superfluous  to  insist  on  anything 
so  palpable.  All  that  is  necessary  is  for  the  reader  to  dwell 
for  a  moment  on  these  and  similar  passages,  and  let  their 
obvious  sense  lay  hold  upon  his  mind.  Let  him  also  ask 
himself  the  near-lying  question  :  If  such  be  not  the  meaning 
of  these  verses,  then  what  is  their  meaning?  What  other 
possible  significance,  that  is  not  trivial,  can  they  have?  Can 
any  rational  man  for  a  moment  believe  that  the  Saviour  sent 
forth  his  apostles  and  disciples  with  such  awful  solemnity  to 
heal  the  few  lunatics  that  languished  in  Galilee?  Is  that  the 
way  the  sublimest  of  teachers  would  found  the  new  and  true 
religion?     And  would  he  describe  the  cure  of  a  few  such 


58  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

wretches  as  the  downfall  of  Satan  from  heaven  ?  Such  an 
idea  cannot  command  the  least  respect  or  attention.  Are 
there  any  scholars  that  really  entertain  it?  If  so,  non 
ragioniam  di  lor.  At  this  point,  then,  our  contention 
would  seem  to  be  so  self-evident  as  to  call  for  nothing 
but  mere  statement.  Nevertheless,  it  is  so  supremely 
important  in  its  consequences  that  it  has  been  thought 
worth  while  to  devote  a  separate  section  to  its  demon- 
stration. 

83.  We  may  also  look  at  the  matter  from  another  view- 
point. If  by  the  expulsion  of  demons  be  meant  the  overthrow 
of  the  heathen  gods,  their  dislodgment  from  the  minds  of  their 
former  servile  worshippers,  then  this  mighty  task,  certainly 
by  far  the  greatest  that  the  new  propaganda  could  propose  or 
could  accomplish,  and  certainly  by  all  odds  the  chiefest  of  all 
its  actual  achievements,  this  supreme  task  receives  in  the 
Gospels  foremost  and  perfectly  proper  recognition — yea,  in 
Acts  X,  38  it  is  specified  as  the  mission  and  activity  of  the 
Jesus.  This,  then,  is  perfectly  what  we  should  and  must 
expect.  It  seems  wholly  inconceivable  that  the  first  propa- 
gators of  a  new  religion,  annihilating  all  others,  should  never 
make  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  of  these,  but  should  direct 
their  chief  attention  to  healing  a  few  defectives,  an  enterprise 
merely  philanthropic,  impossible  of  any  marked  significance, 
and  having  in  it  no  proper  religious  element  or  importance 
whatever.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  exorcisms  be  taken 
literally,  if  they  do  not  symbolise  the  conquest  of  the  pagan 
gods,  then,  indeed,  in  the  Gospels,  in  the  life,  death,  and 
teaching  of  the  Jesus,  in  the  foundation-laying  of  the  new 
faith,  we  find  no  reference  of  any  kind  to  the  overtowering 
fact  of  idolatry,  to  the  very  state  of  the  case  with  which  the 
new  religion  was  far  more  vitally  and  intentionally  concerned 
than  with  any  and  all  others.  There  is,  in  fact,  an  immense 
apparent  vacuity  in  the  Gospel,  which  must  be  filled,  which 
is  actually  and  completely  filled  by  the  hypothesis  here  set 
forth,  and  which  can  be  filled  in  no  other  conceivable  manner. 
It  seems  hardly  reasonable  to  demand  a  more  stringent 
verification  of  an  hypothesis. 

84.   We  now  advance  a  step,  and  maintain  that  it  is  un- 
thinkable that  a  great  world-religious  movement  at  that  era 


CONTENT  OF  THE  GOSPEL  59 

should  not  have  been  aimed  first  and  foremost  at  the  pre- 
vailing idolatry.  For  this  latter  lay  directly  across  the  path 
of  any  feasible  religious  reform.  It  was  utterly  absurd  to 
talk  of  renovating  the  face  of  the  earth  ("The  old  things  are 
passed  away;  behold,  they  are  become  new")  as  long  as 
the  prevalent  polytheism  remained  unshaken.  What  other 
imaginable  way  lay  open  for  God  to  "  reconcile  the  world 
to  himself"  than  by  routing  the  pagan  gods;  by  driving 
them  out  of  man  into  the  swine,  their  fitting  habitation,  and 
whelming  all  in  the  sea?  Hence  the  sublime  depiction  in 
Mark  v,  1-13.  The  notion  that  God  was  reconciling  the 
world  to  himself  by  the  conversion  (to  an  unintelligible 
dogmatic  system)  of  some  individuals  here  and  there  is  inex- 
pressibly puerile ;  it  is,  in  fact.  Individualism  run  mad. 
The  thought  and  schemes  of  the  primitive  preachers  were 
incomparably  grander.'  They  aimed — magnificently  aimed — 
at  the  re-constitution  of  all  society,  at  least  in  its  religious 
aspects  ;  and  this  involved,  first  and  foremost,  as  a  sine  qua 
non^  the  overthrow  of  polytheism.  In  the  light  of  this  fact, 
the  Apologies,  which  represent  clearly  the  attitudes  of  Christian 
and  Pagan  towards  each  other,  become  perfectly  intelligible  ; 
nay,  more,  we  see  distinctly  how  it  was  absolutely  necessary 
for  them  to  be  just  what  they  were.  When  in  modern  times 
a  practical  and  zealous,  not  merely  dreamy  and  speculative, 
reformer  arises,  like  Luther  or  Calvin,  or  Knox  or  Fox,  or 
even  Parker  or  Eddy,  it  becomes  unavoidable  for  him  to 
assume  some  position  with  respect  to  the  prevalent  faith  and 
worship.  So,  too,  it  was  unavoidable  in  the  case  of  the 
early  Christian  propagandists.  Nor  had  they  any  choice  of 
position.  Their  monotheistic  dogma  ran  directly  counter  to 
the  idolatry  of  the  day,  and  between  the  two,  from  the  very 
start,  it  was  war  to  the  knife,  and  the  knife  to  the  hilt.  Hence 
the  intensity  of  the  struggle  as  soon  as  the  propaganda  was 
made  public. 


^  At  this  point  Ramsay's  conception  of  the  preaching  of  Paul  presents  an 
important  element  of  correctness. 


> 


6o  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

THE  SECRET  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY 

85.  We  may  now  also  see  clearly  why  the  propaganda  was 
at  first  a  secret.  This,  too,  was  a  necessity,  but  a  necessity 
of  prudence.  Had  the  Christians  from  the  start  proclaimed 
their  crusade  against  the  gods,  not  in  the  ear,  not  in  the 
dark,  but  in  the  light  and  on  the  housetops,  they  would  very 
soon  have  been  extinguished  ;  for  they  would  have  come 
into  instant  conflict  with  the  State  authorities,  which  studiously 
tolerated  the  gods  as  the  conservative  forces  of  society,  and 
they  would  have  been  suppressed  speedily  and  effectively. 
Hence  the  extreme  prudence  that  marked  the  early  efforts  of 
the  missionaries.  Hence,  too,  the  admirable  injunctions  in 
Matthew  jx — a  most  important  chapter,  which  no  man  can 
understand  save  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  primitive  secrecy 
of  the  cult,  and  that,  too,  a  monotheistic  cult  of  a  holy  war 
against  idolatry.  *'  Behold,  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  in  the 
midst  of  wolves  :  be  ye  therefore  wise  as  serpents,  and  harm- 
less as  doves."  This  maxim  the  early  Christians  seem  to 
have  laid  close  to  heart,  and  it  is  really  wonderful  how 
successfully  they  avoided  collision  with  the  State  authorities  ; 
it  constitutes  a  high  tribute  to  their  general  intelligence  and 
the  wisdom  of  their  methods.  Not  until  the  second  century, 
when  their  numbers  had  greatly  multiplied,  when  they  began 
to  feel  some  confidence  in  their  waxing  strength,  do  they 
begin  to  lay  aside  the  counsels  of  prudence,  and  attack 
polytheism  more  and  more  openly,  and  not  unnaturally 
involve  themselves  in  sharp  conflict  with  the  police,  and 
finally  bring  down  upon  themselves  systematic  persecution. 

86.  It  seems  to  have  been  this  necessary  secrecy  of  the 
cult  and  this  imperative  prudence  in  its  first  proclamation 
that  forced  upon  the  propagandists  a  distinct  dialect,  a 
parabolic  or  symbolic  mode  of  speech,  that  is  still  preserved 
in  our  New  Testament,  especially  in  the  Gospels,  and  has 
been  the  source  of  endless  misunderstanding.  Such  is  the 
esoterism  that  Wellhausen  recognises  in  the  famous  four 
verses  (Mark  iv,  11,  12,  33,  34),  and  that  meets  us,  in  fact,  at 
almost  every  turn  as  we  pick  our  way  through  the  earliest 
Christian  literature.  Such  is  the  explanation,  and  the  only 
possible  explanation,  of  the  parables,  or  at   least  of  their 


THE  SECRET  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY         6i 

astonishing  prominence  in  the  speech  of  the  Jesus.  Even  if 
we  were  to  grant  everything  else  to  the  modern  critics,  it  would 
still  remain  for  ever  incomprehensible  why  any  teacher  should 
employ  the  parable  to  such  an  extraordinary  extent  and 
degree  ;  above  all,  why  he  should  teach  intentionally  in  a 
manner  that  not  even  his  intimate  disciples,  much  less  the 
multitude  of  outsiders,  could  understand.  We  must  repeat 
with  Jiilicher  :  ''  Either  the  Evangelists  or  Jesus  " — that  is, 
the  liberal  '' Jesusbild."  This  latter  is  absolutely  and  admit- 
tedly irreconcilable  with  the  Evangelists.  But  these  latter 
are  equally  irreconcilable  with  common  sense,  so  long  as 
they  are  understood  literally.  They  must,  then,  be  under- 
stood, not  literally,  but  symbolically,  esoterically,  precisely 
as  they  themselves  demand  in  those  priceless  four  verses. 

87.  More  specifically,  we  now  see  why  the  Gospels  never 
speak  of  heathen  gods  and  their  overthrow,  but  so  continually 
of  the  casting-out  of  demons.  This  phraseology  was  part  and 
parcel  of  the  parabolic  dialect  they  had  found  it  wise  to  use. 
It  would  have  been  rash,  and  might  have  been  disastrous,  to 
talk  or  even  to  write  about  the  overthrow  of  Zeus  and  Apollo 
and  Artemis  and  Minerva  and  Juno  and  Serapis  and  Isis  and 
Attis  and  a  legion  of  others.  It  was  far  safer,  as  well  as  far 
more  forcible  and  poetic,  to  speak  of  Man  as  possessed  by 
a  legion  of  demons,  who  are  expelled  and  annihilated  by  the 
omnipotent  word  of  the  Jesus,  whereupon  Man  himself, 
clothed  and  in  his  right  mind,  seats  himself  (as  a  learner  and 
follower)  at  the  feet  of  his  Saviour.  That  it  was  the  especial 
mission  of  the  new  cult  to  vanquish  the  prevailing  idolatry 
is  expressed  in  symbolic  terms  of  startling  vividness  in 
Mark  i,  24.  At  the  very  opening  of  his  ministry,  as  his  first 
miracle,  in  Capernaum,  the  Jesus  expels  the  demon,  who, 
speaking  in  the  plural,  cries  out  :  "•  What  to  us  and  thee, 
Jesus  Nazarene  ?  Thou  art  come  to  destroy  us.  We  know 
thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One  of  God."  This  demoniac, 
mark  you,  is  in  the  synagogue,  and  very  properly,  because 
it  was  among  the  Hellenists,  the  half-Judaised  Greeks  and 
half-Grecised  Jews,  that  the  great  movement  took  its  origin. 

88.  We  now  arrive  at  the  explanation  of  the  name 
Jesus,  which  has  triumphed  over  every  other  name  under 
heaven.     The  original  crusade,  even  down  through  the  third 


62  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

j/century,  as  the  apologists  witness,  was  against  polytheism  ; 
and  one  might  think  that  the  bare  doctrine  of  the  one  God, 

11  whose  name  is  God,  might  have  been  brought  forward,  as, 
in  fact,  it  is  in  Octavius,  That,  however,  was  not  possible 
without  making  a  more  or  less  open  attack  on  the  countless 
!  gods  ;  and  this,  we  have  just  seen,  was  what  prudence  forbade 
las  impracticable.  If  the  new  doctrine  was  to  be  expressed 
guardedly  and  symbolically,  then  nothing  else  lay  nearly  so 
nigh  as  to  speak  of  the  infinite  error  of  humanity  as  a  disease, 
as  possession  by  demons,  who  were  regarded  as  actual  beings 
and  the  active  principles  in  the  gods  themselves.  The  incite- 
ment to  such  a  metaphor,  if  any  were  at  all  needed,  was  given 
in  the  Old  Testament  language,  where  the  backsliding  of 
Israel,  his  reversion  to  idolatry,  is  represented  as  a  disease 
which  Jehovah  heals.  But,  in  fact,  the  metaphor  lay  so 
close  at  hand  that  it  could  hardly  have  been  avoided.     If, 

,  now,  this  paganism,  this  possession  by  demons,  was  con- 
ceived as  a  disease,  then  whoso  overthrew  the  paganism, 
expelled  the  demon,  cured  the  disease,  must  be  conceived  as 
a  healer,  a  physician,  a  Saviour.  Of  course,  this  same  power 
was  really  God  or  the  worship  of  God  ;  but  it  was  conceived 
personally,  and  in  the  symbolic  dialect  it  had  to  be  designated 
by  a  proper  name  and  represented  as  a  man,  according  to 
universal  usage.  But  what  should  be  the  name  ?  It  needs 
little  additional  argument  to  show,  for  the  considerations 
already  brought  forward  have  made  clear,  that  the  name  to 
be  preferred  above  all  others  was  none  else  than  the  world- 
conquering  name  of  Jesus.  Both  in  its  Greek  and  in  its 
Hebrew  form  it  was  perfectly  adapted  to  the  end  in  view — to 
serve  as  a  name  for  Deity  under  the  aspect  or  person,  not  of 
King,  nor  Creator,  nor  Judge,  nor  even  Father,  but  of  the 
healing,  the  saving,  God ;  and  it  is  under  precisely  this 
aspect,  which  is  at  the  same  time  an  aspect  of  eternity,  that 
he  appears  upon  the  scene  in  the  Gospels,  particularly  the 

\   more  primitive,  as  Mark,  and  there  enacts  the  grand  role  of 

I   Salvation,  of  triumph  over  all  the  demon-gods  of  the  earth. 

(  '89.  It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  this  highly 
pictorial  representation  would  please  every  mind  that  was  in 
hearty  sympathy  with  the  general  idea.  By  no  means.  The 
diversity  of  individual  natures  is  far  too  great.     There  were 


THE  SECRET  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY        63 

doubtless  many  who  would  not  fall  in  fully  with  this 
depiction,  precisely  because  it  had  not  originated  with  them- 
selves. We  all  know  the  conundrum  :  What  is  a  Professor? 
Answer  :  A  man  that  has  some  other  opinion.  Doubtless 
there  were  many  such  among  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  in  whose 
Talmud  and  whose  philosophies  not  a  few  opinions  seem 
to  have  as  their  only  raison  d'etre  their  difference  from  all 
others.  Unless,  then,  we  suppose  human  nature  to  have 
been  entirely  peculiar  in  those  early  Christian  circles,  we 
must  be  prepared  to  find  many  diverse  representations  of  this 
same  central  concept  of  God  as  Saviour.  In  fact,  we  do  find 
a  very  great  diversity,  even  within  the  lids  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself ;  and  as  soon  as  we  pass  beyond  this  canon  the 
diversity  becomes  almost  measureless.  So  great,  indeed,  it 
is  that  nearly  eighteen  hundred  years  of  firm  ecclesiastical 
coercion  have  failed  to  reduce  it  to  anything  like  harmony  ; 
and  over  one  hundred  years  of  untiring  efforts,  of  boundless 
learning,  and  piercing  acumen  have  been  unable  to  discover 
and  exhibit  the  supposed  original  unity  of  a  central  per- 
sonality. In  fact,  the  differences  penetrate  to  the  very  root 
of  the  whole  doctrine,  and  leave  absolutely  nothing  on  which 
there  is  agreement  beyond  the  one  conception  of  the  one 
God,  as  in  some  way  and  under  some  form  coming  to  the 
rescue  of  afflicted  and  erring  humanity. 

90.  These  deep-reaching  diversities  seem  to  show  of  them- 
selves convincingly  that  there  was  at  the  start  no  one  com- 
manding and  all-compelling  intellect  or  personality,  but  that 
many  minds  of  many  types,  ranging  from  the  highly  sensuous, 
pictorial,  and  imaginative  to  the  deeply  pensive,  subtly 
argumentative,  and  cosmic-philosophic,  were  from  the  very 
first  at  work  upon  the  same  great  problem  of  a  universal 
monotheistic  religion.  To  be  sure,  there  were  not  merely 
independent  and  widely  separated  points  of  view ;  there 
would  also  be  many  eclectics  and  syncretists,  who  recognised 
a  certain  amount  of  beauty  or  propriety  or  truth  in  alien  doc- 
trines, and  sought  to  harmonise  them — to  fuse  them  together 
into  one.  Our  New  Testament  scriptures  are  very  largely 
the  result  of  such  well-meant  efforts.  A  striking  example  is 
afforded  by  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  seeks  to  melt  into  one 
the  representations  of  the  Salvation-God  as  the  eternal  Logos 


64  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

and  as  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists — with  how  much  success 
it  is  needless  to  discuss. 

91.   It   should   be   added   that   one   form    of  speech   was 
virtually   necessitated  by  the  essential   nature  of  the  whole 
movement  as  aimed  at  the  overthrow  of  polytheism  and  the 
introduction  everywhere  of  the  worship  of  the  one  God.     The 
goal  of  endeavour  was  to  inake  God  known ^"^  to  reveal  him  to 
men.     In  the  new  cult  he  was  made  known,  was  revealed  ;  in 
one  word,  he  appeared  to  men.    But  not  only  did  he  thus  appear 
to  men  :   in   this  appearance,  in   this  revelation,  in  this  new 
doctrine,  he  was  (for  purely  pictorial  and  symbolic  purposes 
and  reasons  already  set  forth)  spoken  of  as  a  man,  as  going 
hither  and  thither  proclaiming  the  new  doctrine,  as  casting 
out  demons,  and  performing  the  whole  work  of  salvation  that 
was  actually  accomplished  by  the  cult  itself.     Thus,  to  take 
a  striking  illustration,  when  Gentile  proselytes  were  admitted 
into  the  Kingdom  on  equal  terms  with  the  Jews,  though  some 
narrower  conservatives  at  first  opposed,  the  Jesus  is  repre- 
sented as  blessing  "  little  ones  "  (as  such  proselytes  or  con- 
verts were  called),  and  saying:    ''Suffer  the  little  children 
to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them   not,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God."     That  the  reference  here  is  exclusively 
to    such   proselytes   is    elsewhere    proved    in    this   volume. 
Everyone   must  admit  that  the  symbolic  statement  of  this 
fact,  as  an  act  of  the  Jesus,  is  incomparably  more  impres- 
sive  than   any   mere    prosaic    and    literal    statement   could 
ever  be. 

92.  But  such  metaphors  carried  with  them  an  important 
corollary — namely,  that  the  Jesus  appeared  as  a  man^  in  the 
flesh.''  This  corollary  was  merely  a  piece  of  poetic  or  pictorial 
consistency,  and  had  no  further  historic  validity  than  the 
original  picture-phrase  itself.  However,  when  once  a  riotous 
imagination  started  on  such  a  path  there  was  no  telling 
where   it  would  stop.      Some    might    be    content  with    the 

'  Hence  the  genuine  proto-Christian  terms  Gnosis  and  Gnostic.  Knowledge 
of  God  and  worship  of  God  are  the  two  pole-stars  of  the  proto-Christian 
heavens. 

^  In  fact,  the  idea  of  the  Logos  or  Word  dwelling  in  men  had  already  been 
naturalised  in  extensive  circles.  "  The  habitation  of  the  Word  is  Man " 
{Odes  of  Soloman  xii,  11).  It  matters  not  to  say  with  Harnack,  "  there  is  no 
thought  here  of  the  Hellenic  Logos" — the  passage  from  one  to  the  other  was 
too  easy  and  tempting. 


THE  SECRET  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY        65 

declaration  that  he  appeared  as  man,  appeared  in  the  flesh  ; 
^thers  would  want  to  know  where,  how,  and  when,  and 
answers  would  be  supplied  in  varying  fashion  and  in  varying 
degrees  of  minuteness.  Mark  and  John  might  resign 
themselves  to  silence  concerning  birth  and  infancy,  while 
Matthew  and  Luke  devised  mutually  exclusive  pre-histories. 
But  not  only  might  it  seem  necessary  to  give  an  account  of 
the  birth,  it  would  certainly  in  any  case  seem  necessary  to 
give  some  account  of  the  departure  from  earth  and  return  to 
heaven,  whence  he  was  in  this  fullness  of  time  revealed.  On 
this  point  there  could  not  be  so  much  diversity  of  fancy, 
though  there  might  be  a  great  deal.  The  notion  of  a  Divine 
Sufferer,  even  of  a  dying  God,  was  given  in  the  ancient 
mythology,  with  which  such  students  of  religion,  as  the  first 
Christians  were,  would  naturally  be  acquainted.  Still  more, 
the  famous  Isaian  passage  on  the  suffering  and  death  of  the 
servant  of  Yahveh  (Is.  Hi,  13-liii,  12)  lay  open  at  hand,  nor 
could  it  nor  did  it  fail  to  impress  the  earliest  Christian  con- 
sciousness and  fancy,  as  the  case  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
clearly  shows  (Acts  viii,  27-40). 

93.  This  was  not  all,  however.  Perhaps  even  more 
determinative  was  the  wonderful  passage  in  the  Republic 
(II,  361  d),  where  they  found  vividly  portrayed  the  persecu- 
tion and  crucifixion  of  the  ideal  Just  One.  Hence  the  Jesus 
could  be  called  directly  the  Just.  Once  the  death  on  the 
cross  was  elaborated  in  this  great  quasi-historic  picture,  the 
resurrection  and  ascension  could  not  linger.  To  express 
this  resurrection  the  same  word,  Anastasis,  was  used  that  had 
already  been  employed  (it  would  seem)  to  denote  the  estab- 
lishment or  inauguration'  of  the  new  Saviour-God  on  the 
throne  of  the  universe.  Of  course,  the  resurrection  and 
ascension  were  not  naturally  conceived  as  two  things,  but  as 
one,  as  a  rising  up  and  ascent  to  the  heights  of  heaven.  The 
previous  use  of  the  term  Anastasis,  in  the  sense  of  setting-up, 
explains  why  the  resurrection  was  unnaturally  distinguished 
from  the  ascension. — In  the  foregoing  sketch  we  find 
expressed  or  implied  all  the  elements  of  the  primitive  faith 
found  in  that  earliest  symbol,  i  Tim.  iii,  16  :  "  Confessedly 

*  Compare  the  essay  "  Anastasis  "  in  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus. 

F 


66  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness  :  who  was  manifested  in 
flesh,  was  justified  in  spirit,  appeared  to  angels,  was  preached 
among  Gentiles,  was  believed  on  in  the  world,  was  received 
up  in  glory."  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  they  who 
first  sang  these  lines  understood  w^hat  they  were  singing, 
and  were  clearly  conscious  that  the  import  was  symbolic. 

94.  It  could  not  be  expected  that  an  elaborate  parable 
could  be  pursued  to  the  end  without  falling  into  many 
contradictions,  and  even  absurdities.  All  rhetoricians  warn 
us  not  to  press  metaphors.  In  the  Gospels  the  metaphor 
has  been  pressed  rather  hard,  and  with  tremendous  conse- 
quences to  human  history. 

95.  It  is  by  no  means  forgotten  that  there  are  many  other 
important  notions  in  the  Gospels,  as  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Christ,  which  we  have  thus  far  not 
introduced  by  name.  In  some  respects  these  are  easy 
enough,  in  others  not  so  easy  to  understand.  No  discussion 
of  them  is  at  present  necessary,  for  they  are  in  any  and 
every  case  ideas  and  nothing  else  than  ideas,  conceptions  of 
celestial  beings.  Whatever  be  their  genesis,  and  however 
they  were  finally  though  imperfectly  fused  with  the  notion  of 
the  Jesus,  the  Saviour-God,  it  cannot  affect  seriously  our 
general  verdict  upon  the  matter  already  treated.  In 
particular,  the  marriage  of  the  concept  of  the  Jesus  with  that 
of  the  Christ,  which  seems  in  large  measure  the  work  of  the 
Jewish  scribe  Saul,  is  a  difficult  problem  of  great  interest. 
But  its  solution  cannot  disturb  the  results  thus  far  attained. 
We  may,  then,  postpone  its  treatment  for  the  present. 

96.  In  the  development  of  the  drama  of  salvation  there 
were  many  mythologic  elements  that  lay  at  hand,  not  a  few 
venerable  in  their  antiquity,  descended  from  Nippur  and 
Babylon,  from  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates,  and  possibly 
even  from  the  Indus  and  the  Ganges.  It  would  be  strange 
if  these  had  not  suggested  or  shaped  or  coloured  some  of 
the  incidents  and  delineations  and  even  thought-elements 
elaborated  in  the  Gospels,  in  the  New  Testament,  in  early 
Christian  literature,  faith,  and  worship.  The  deep  researches 
of  Assyriologists  in  particular  will  doubtless  bring  more  and 
more  of  these  to  light,  and  such  illumination  is  most  welcome 
and  valuable.     But  it  would  be  a  mistake  (in  my  opinion)  to 


ACTIVE  PRINCIPLE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  67 

ascribe  to  these  more  or  less  passive  elements  an  originative 
or  actively  formative  power.  They  were  not  themselves 
vivifying  ;  they  needed  to  be  vivified.  They  lent  themselves 
readily  to  the  creative  activity  of  the  new  spirit,  the  new 
teaching,  the  new  religion.  It  was  this  creative  idea  that 
intussuscepted  and  assimilated  them,  and  transformed  them 
into  the  living  tissue  of  the  Gospel,  the  creed  and  the  ritual, 
even  as  the  formative  idea  of  the  organism  seizes  upon  and 
converts  into  its  own  organic  fibre  the  nutritive  material  that 
lies  within  its  reach.  It  appears,  then,  forever  inadmissible  to 
explain  Christianity  from  the  Gilgamesh  Epos  or  from  Babel 
or  India  or  elsewhere,  though  all  of  these  may  have  contri- 
buted more  or  less  food  to  the  organic  idea  that  has  unfolded 
itself  in  the  historic  church  and  creed  and  scriptures.  But 
for  the  germ,  the  growing  idea,  all  of  these  elements  and 
millions  more  would  have  continued  to  lie  inert  and  lifeless, 
as  they  had  lain  for  a  thousand  years.' 

THE  ACTIVE  PRINCIPLE  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

97.  Do  you  ask  what  was  this  germ?  The  answer  must 
be  that  already  given  :  It  was  the  monotheistic  impulse,  the 
instinct  for  unity  that  lies  at  the  heart  of  all  grand  philosophy 
and  all  noble  religion. 

The  Christian  fathers  did  not  err  in  dedicating  so  much 
time  and  thought  to  the  doctrine  of  Monarchy^  the  sole 
sovereignty  of  God  ;  nor  was  Schleiermacher  wrong  in  saying 
of  the  chief  of  modern  Monists  that  he  was  "  full  of  religion 
and  full  of  a  holy  spirit ";  nor  Novalis  in  calling  him  a  **  God- 
intoxicated  man."  The  heart  and  soul  of  primal  Christianity 
was  an  impassioned,  sustained,  and  well-reasoned  protest 
against    the    prevailing    idolatry,    as    degrading,    immoral, 

^  Compare  my  words  in  the  American  Journal  Oj  Theology  (April,  1911, 
p.  265) :  "  As  the  planet  speeds  sweeping-  round  the  sun  it  gathers  up  showers 
of  meteoric  masses,  the  dust  of  shattered  worlds,  and  imbeds  them  in  its  own 
crust.  So,  too,  as  the  great  idea  of  the  Jesus,  the  healing-,  saving,  demon- 
expelling  God,  circled  round  through  the  circum- Mediterranean  conscious- 
ness, it  could  hardly  fail  to  attract  and  attach  to  itself  many  wandering 
fragments  of  dismembered  faiths,  and  the  identification  of  these  may  well 
engage  the  attention  of  the  orientalist  and  the  comparative  philologist ;  but 
the  nucleus  and  central  mass  of  the  'new  doctrine'  would  seem  to  lie  nearer 
home,  and  need  not  be  sought  for  on  the  banks  of  the  Ganges  or  the  Nile,  in 
the  Gilgamesh  Epos  or  in  the  inscriptions  of  Crete." 


68  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

irrational,  and  wholly  unworthy  of  man,  who  was  the 
sublimest  creature  in  the  universe,  and  ought  to  worship 
only  the  one  supreme  God,  forever  one,  though  revealed  to 
man  under  a  variety  of  aspects  or  persons ;  and  it  was 
precisely  this  plea  for  monotheism  that  won  for  the  new 
religion  its  sudden  and  surprising  victory. 

98.  But  no  germ  can  grow,  or  even  live,  unless  the 
environment  be  favourable,  and  the  degree  of  perfection  in 
the  development  will  depend  in  great  measure  on  the  degree 
of  favour  shown  by  the  environment.  If  we  apply  this 
truism  to  the  case  in  hand,  we  shall  quickly  perceive  that  all 
the  conditions  were  present  in  the  beginning  of  our  era,  or 
even  before,  in  measure  and  degree  never  equalled,  for  the 
germination  and  growth  of  precisely  such  an  idea  as  we  have 
found  embodied  in  Christianity.  For  it  is  well  known  and 
freely  recognised  that  there  was  all  around  the  Mediterranean 
an  immense  and  intense  yearning  for  a  Saviour.  The 
evidence  is  already  printed,  and  accessible,  and  referred  to, 
so  that  we  need  not  dwell  on  the  point  longer. 

99.  Far  more  important  is  the  fact  that  the  existing 
conditions  were  such  as  to  arouse  the  monotheistic  instinct 
to  almost  feverish  activity.  As  long  as  some  kind  of  political 
independence,  or  at  least  separation,  attached  to  geographical 
isolation  or  removal,  and  to  racial  or  linguistic  distinction, 
the  dominion  of  local  or  ethnic  gods  was  not  deeply 
disturbed  by  the  convulsions  of  war  and  the  revolutions 
of  empire.  The  intuition  of  the  One,  of  whom  even  the 
planetary  deities  were  only  partial  manifestations  and  embodi- 
ments, here  and  there  asserted  itself  (as  Delitzsch  has  taught 
us)  thousands  of  years  before  among  the  elect  by  the  rivers  of 
Babylon.  But  only  at  wide  intervals  did  such  Teneriffe- 
peaks  of  thought  shoot  up  above  the  dead  level  of  the  many 
waters  of  polytheism.  Even  amid  the  race-destroying  trans- 
portations that  formed  part  of  the  imperial  policy  of  Asshur 
and  Babel,  the  local  gods  held  their  seats  unshaken  ;  the 
new-comers  were  merely  their  new  subjects,  who  adopted 
their  cult  and  submitted  themselves  to  their  lordship.  A 
striking  example  is  afforded  in  2  Kings  xvii,  24-33,  where 
the  five  nations  transported  to  Samaria  are  taught  "the 
manner  of  the  God  "  of  their  new  land,  and  learn  to  "  fear 


ACTIVE  PRINCIPLE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  69 

Yahveh,"  though  still  cherishing  the  cults  of  their  elder 
gods.  There  was  a  powerful  action  and  reaction  at  the 
appulse  of  Judaea  and  Persia,  but  the  contact  was  brief  and 
far  from  world-wide. 

100.  Far  more  significant  every  way  were  the  planet- 
ranging  conquests  of  Alexander.  That  overthrow  of  Asiatic 
empire  and  civilisation  by  Europe,  the  vehement  refluence 
eastward  of  the  wave  of  conquest  that  for  so  many  centuries 
had  rolled  westward,  the  rout  and  ruin  of  the  monstrous  gods 
of  the  Orient  before  the  beauteous  divinities  of  Greek  mytho- 
logy— all  this  produced  a  religious  fermentation  profounder 
and  more  important  than  any  political  revolution.  But  the 
mighty  work  of  Philip's  warlike  son  was  prematurely  arrested, 
and  his  colossal  empire  fell  instantly  to  pieces  amid  the  strife 
of  his  successors.^  Nevertheless,  the  spread  of  Hellenic 
thought,  culture,  and  speech  over  all  the  east  was  a  unifying 
agency  of  incalculable  moment.  To  be  sure,  there  was 
reaction  as  well  as  action :  Greek  culture  was  debased, 
Greek  speech  enervated,  Greek  ethics  and  religion  corrupted 
by  amalgamation. 

loi.  Still  more  important — indeed,  of  decisive  influence — 
were  the  all-subduing  arms  and  the  all-ordering  law  of  Rome. 
The  Roman  conquests  and,  above  all,  the  Roman  peace 
involved  the  final  confutation  and  condemnation  of  poly- 
theism. For  although  the  glorious  gods  of  Greece  might 
have  been  allowed,  with  some  show  of  reason,  to  have 
triumphed  over  the  grosser  cults  of  Asia,  yet  no  one  could 
explain  why  they  themselves,  incomparable  in  beauty  and 
unsurpassed  in  power,  should  go  down  before  the  borrowed 
forms  and  colourless  abstractions  of  Italy.  Besides,  the 
universal  empire  of  Rome  and  the  universal  intermingling 
of  the  peoples,  coupled  with  the  universal  toleration  on  equal 
terms  of  all  forms  of  faith  and  worship,  not  only  made  all 
religions  known  to  all  men,  but  at  the  same  time  made  all  of 
them  nearly  equally  ridiculous.  It  was  a  general  reductio  ad 
absurdum.  How  could  two  priests,  of  Isis  and  of  Artemis, 
exchange  courtesies  in  the  Forum  without  a  smile? 

*  How  powerful  was  the  subsequent  reaction  of  the  religions  of  the  East, 
Cumont  has  recently  made  clear  in  his  Les  Religions  orientales  dans  le  Pagan- 
isme  romain. 


70  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

102.  Long  before  this,  however,  the  widely -current 
philosophies  of  the  pre-Socratics,  of  Plato,  of  Aristotle,  of 
the  Stoics  and  Epicureans,  and  of  the  later  Academy,  had 
completely  undermined,  and  even  overthrown,  the  national 
faiths  in  the  minds  of  the  cultured,  and  had  even  aroused  a 
spirit  of  indignant  rebellion  against  the  degrading  slavery 
imposed  on  them  by  the  many-headed  hydra  of  superstition, 
a  feeling  voiced  in  verses  of  immortal  beauty  by  Lucretius, 
celebrating  Epicurus  as  the  deliverer  of  men.'  But  the 
contribution  of  philosophy  towards  the  liberation  of  the 
human  mind,  great  as  it  was,  by  no  means  sufficed  ;  for  it 
did  not  free  the  enslaved  masses,  for  whom  Protagoras  and 
Democritus  and  Carneades  were  but  the  shadows  of  mighty 
names.     The  true  Deliverer  was  yet  to  come. 

103.  How  keenly  this  humiliating  servitude  to  demons 
was  felt  by  the  ancient  mind  is  amply  attested  by  Christian 
as  well  as  by  profane  writers.  Through  all  the  Apologies 
rings  loud  and  clear  the  bugle-call  to  freedom.  The  same 
clarion  note  is  heard  in  the  New  Testament.  In  Rom.  viii, 
19-21  we  have  a  striking  description  of  the  state  of  heathen- 
dom (17  KTicTig,  the  creature,  here  evidently  means  the  Gentile 
world,  as  in  Mark  xvi,  15,  "Preach  the  Gospel  to  all  the 
creature  ";  which  equals  Matthew  xxviii,  19,  *'  Disciple  all  the 
Gentiles")^:  "For  the  yearning  expectation  of  the  creature 
awaits  the  revelation  of  the  sons  of  God.  For  unto  vanity 
the  creature  was  subjected,  not  of  its  own  will,  but  through 
Him  that  subjected  it,  in  hope  that  the  creature  itself  shall  be 
freed  from  the  slavery  of  corruption  unto  the  freedom  of  the 
glory  of  the  children  of  God.  For  we  know  that  all  the 
creature  groans  and  travails  in  pain  together  until  now." 
"  Vanity "  and  the  "  slavery  of  corruption "  mean  here 
idolatry  and  polytheism,  so  fiercely  assailed  in  the  first 
chapter,    verses    18-32.     "Vanity,"   under   many   forms    in 

'  Mallock  in  his  paraphrase  would  almost  outwing  the  Roman  Eagle  : — 
"  Him  not  the  splintered  lightnings,  nor  the  roll 
Of  thunders  daunted.     Undismayed,  his  soul 

Rose,  and  outsoared  the  thunder,  plumbed  the  abyss, 
And  scanned  the  wheeling  worlds  from  pole  to  pole." 
*  "  In  my  name,"  as  Conybeare  seems  brilliantly  to  prove  from  Eusebius 
that  the  earlier  ante-Nicene  text  read  (see  Preuschen's  Zeitschrift^  1901,  275- 
288;    also  Usener,   Rhn.   Mus.^   1902,  39  ff.  Contra,  Riggenbach,  Der  trin. 
Taufhefehl^  1903). 


ACTIVE  PRINCIPLE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  71 

Hebrew,  is  a  regular  term  for  idols  and  idol-worship,  and 
it  is  also  used  similarly  in  Acts  xiv,  15 ;  Eph.  iv,  17. 
*'  Slavery  of  corruption  "  means  clearly  servitude  to  images, 
to  corruptible  stocks  and  stones,  the  same  bondage  against 
which  we  find  such  a  powerful  protest  in  Gal.  iv,  8,  9,  and 
elsewhere.  "  The  glorious  freedom  "  is  nothing  but  mono- 
theism, the  service~of  the  one  true  God,  called  the  Truth  in 
the  Johannines,  as  in  the  famous  oracle  (viii,  32)  :  **  And  ye 
shall  know  the  Truth,  and  the  Truth  shall  make  you  free." 
"  What  ?  "  says  an  objector,  "  were  not  the  Jews  already  the 
strictest  monotheists?"  Certainly,  they  thought  so;  but 
some  enthusiastic  Christians  would  not  admit  it,  as  we  have 
already  learned  from  the  Apology  of  Aristides.'  Neither  will 
the  Fourth  Evangelist ;  he  denies  it  in  chap,  viii,  verse  42,  and 
in  verse  54  he  declares  :  *'  Of  whom  ye  say  that  he  is  your  God, 
yet  ye  have  not  known  him."  In  Gal.  iv,  8,  9  Christianity 
and  heathenism  are  directly  opposed  as  "  knowing  God  "  and 
**not  knowing  God." 

104.  Yet,  Freedom  !  yet  thy  banner,  torn,  but  flying, 
Streams  like  the  thunder-storm  against  the  wind. 
It  is  political  freedom  of  which  the  Titan-poet  speaks,  at 
sight  of  whose  banner  "  men  have  crowded  the  road  to  death 
as  to  a  festival."  It  was  a  far  more  **  glorious  freedom  of  the 
sons  of  God  "  that  the  early  Christians  proclaimed  ;  it  was 
redemption  from  a  far  more  terrible  "tyranny  of  demons," 
which  had  trodden  down  humanity  in  dust  and  mire  since  the 
first  syllable  of  recorded  time.  It  would  have  been  strange  if 
such  a  banner  had  not  been  unfurled  precisely  at  this  crisis 
in  the  history  of  our  race  ;  it  would  have  been  strange  if  it 
had  not  aroused  immense  enthusiasm  in  all  ranks  of  society  ; 
if  it  had  not  inspired  its  followers  with  a  new  sense  of  the 
dignity  of  man  and  the  infinite  worth  of  personality  and  the 
human  soul,  as  well  as  of  the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God 
and  brotherhood  of  man,  ideas  which  the  ablest  critics  have 
regarded  as  most  nearly  expressing  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity. But  these  critics  have  never  logically  related  these 
ideas  to  the  early  propaganda,  because  they  have  never 
thought    of   this    propaganda    as   a    prudently   veiled    and 

*  And  from  Lactantius.     See  footnote,  p.  38. 


^2  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

cautiously  guarded,   but   none   the   less   intense  and   deter- 
mined, crusade  against  idolatry. 

105.  If  such  a  rebellion  against  polytheism  was  natural, 
and  even  inevitable,  under  the  given  conditions,  it  was  no 
less  certain  that  it  should  find  its  focus  in  the  Dispersion, 
among  the  proselytising  Jews  and  their  Gentile  proselytes,  in 
that  border  region  where  the  Jew  and  the  Greek  joined  hands. 
For  the  Jew  was  unquestionably  the  one  conspicuous  repre- 
sentative of  monotheistic  theory  and  practice,  and  his  sacred 
books  afforded  the  most  ample  arsenal  of  arguments  in  the 
long  controversy  with  pagandom.  The  writings  of  the 
Greek  philosophers,  moralists,  and  poets  were  by  no  means 
to  be  despised  ;  nor  were  they.  On  the  contrary,  the  New 
Testament  is  vocal  with  echoes  from  Greek  literature  ;  while 
in  the  apologists,  as  Clement,  we  hear  the  full-voiced  choir 
of  Hellas.  Nevertheless,  even  Socrates  offered  a  cock  to 
Asklepios,  and  even  ^schylus  and  Sophocles  recognised, 
though  they  might  have  explained  away,  an  endless  multi- 
plicity of  deities.  It  was  only  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  that 
the  absolute  oneness  of  the  Godhead  was  enounced  and 
maintained  clearly,  consistently,  and  unequivocally.  Hence, 
these  same  Holy  Scriptures  formed  the  indispensable  point 
d^appui,  the  base  of  operations,  in  the  sacred  campaign 
against  All  that  fell  by  One  who  rose. 

106.  Nevertheless,  it  was  in  the  main  a  Greek  and  not  a 
Hebrew  consciousness  that  delivered  the  tremendous  battle. 
The  arms  were  the  arms  of  Jacob,  but  the  sinews  were  the 
sinews  of  Japheth.  It  was  most  natural  that  the  Jews  in 
general  should  never  have  felt  that  this  warfare  was  their 
own.  To  be  sure,  it  championed  their  central  dogma,  but 
only  in  a  sense  different  from  the  original,  a  sense  to  which 
the  great  majority  of  them  had  never  attained,  and  which 
involved  concessions  and  renunciations  they  were  naturally 
very  slow  to  make.  This  attitude  of  reserve  on  the  part  of 
the  Jew  has  found  frequent  expression  in  the  New  Testament, 
to  which  explicit  attention  is  called  in  the  following  pages. 
He  is,  e,g.j  the  Rich  One  of  Mark  x,  17-31  ;  the  Dives  of 
Luke  xvi,  19-31.  It  was  hard  indeed  for  him  to  enter  the 
Kingdom  into  which  Gentiles  were  admitted  on  equal  terms. 
He  has  never  been  able  to  do  it.     Neither  could  the  call  to 


ACTIVE  PRINCIPLE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  73 

Freedom  awaken  in  his  soul  the  same  echo  as  in  the  Gentile's, 
for  it  did  not  smite  upon  the  same  reverberating  conscious- 
ness of  servitude  to  demons.  The  Gospel  message  could  not 
have  been  laden  with  its  full  import  for  Jews  who  were  justly- 
proud  of  their  immemorial  henotheism. 

107.  This  fact  and  this  feeling  are  set  in  bold  and  striking 
relief  by  the  fourth  Evangelist  (viii,  32-33) :  *'  And  ye  shall 
know  the  Truth,  and  the  Truth  shall  make  you  free.  They 
answered  unto  him.  We  be  Abraham's  seed,  and  never  yet 
have  been  in  bondage  to  anyone."  What  bondage  is 
meant?  Surely  not  political,  for  the  race  had  passed  most 
of  its  history,  and  was  even  then,  in  political  bondage.  Nor 
yet  moral,  in  spite  of  the  allusion  in  verse  34  to  sin.  The 
bondage  is  religious.  The  Jews  boasted  of  their  monotheism, 
their  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  derived  from  Abraham. 
They  had  never  served  any  false  god.  It  is  this  that  the 
Evangelist  denies,  as  did  Aristides.  He  will  not  admit  that 
they  are  true  monotheists,  true  God-worshippers  (viii,  39,  40). 
Nay,  they  are  not  God's  children,  that  is,  worshippers  of  God.' 
They  are  the  devil's  children,  worshippers  (in  some  way)  of 
the  devil,  whose  works  they  do  (viii,  41).  Undoubtedly  the 
Jews  here  suffer  gross  injustice,  but  they  never  fare  well  at 
Johannine  hands.  This  long  passage,  however,  merely 
elaborates  a  synoptic  idea  very  briefly  expressed  (Matt,  iii,  9 ; 
Luke  iii,  8) :  "  And  think  not  to  say  within  yourselves.  We 
have  Abraham  to  our  father :  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God 
is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham." 
Again  the  monotheistic  boast ;  but  a  vain  one  !  For  God 
could  make  the  stones  sons  of  Abraham.  This  can  mean 
nothing  (as  Zahn,  who  is  so  often  right,  perceives,  p.  135) 
but  the  conversion  of  the  heathen.^  Precisely  the  same 
sense  is  found  in  Luke  xix,  40  :  "The  stones  will  cry  out" — 
t.e.y  the  heathen  will  accept  the  Jesus-cult  with  acclamation.   / 

108.  To  the  Jew   the   glorious   doctrine   of  monotheism 

^  Whether  there  lies  hidden  therein  any  Marcionitic  contrast  between  the 
Jewish  God  and  the  true  Good  God  is  a  subtle  question  that  need  not  now  be 
broached. 

^  In  Greek  and  other  mythologies  stones  were  turned  into  men,  and  stone 
was  not  an  uncommon  word  for  a  dolt ;  it  might  well  be  used  to  denote  such  as 
actually  worshipped  stocks  and  stones.  Here,  however,  it  seems  to  be  used 
in  a  play  on  words  :  For  sons  would  be  Unayya\  and  stones  v^o\x\di  be  'aVnayya* 
— the  difference  in  pronunciation  is  hardly  more  than  perceptible. 


74  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

belonged  of  right  by  inheritance  from  Abraham,  who  first  of 
men  (in  Jewish  story)  had  faith  in  the  one  God  and  went 
forth  a  true  monotheist  from  the  land  of  idolatry.  But  the 
new  monotheism  they  did  not  accept ;  they  were  shut  out 
from  the  Kingdom,  though  themselves  its  children  ;  and  the 
Gentiles  from  every  quarter  of  the  compass,  carried  by  angels 
to  Abraham's  bosom,  enter  in  and  share  it  with  the  ancient 
Faithful.  This  "  great  refusal "  of  the  Jews  is  represented 
again  in  more  fearful  colours  a.s  a.  ^* Surrender^'  (not  Betrayal) 
of  the  Jesus  by  Judas  (z.^.,  Judasus)  (I)Scariot  {t.e,y  Surren- 
derer^  6  Trapa^ovg)  as  is  proved  in  proper  place).  It  is,  indeed, 
the  greatest  of  all  national  tragedies,  stretching  out  its 
tremendous  length  through  all  succeeding  centuries. 

109.  Herewith  the  circuit  of  thought  marked  out  for  this 
Introduction  is  nearly  completed.  It  is  now  seen  that  the 
title  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  given  to  the  earlier  work  is 
every  way  far  more  than  justified.  The  central  fact  demand- 
ing explanation  is  the  worship  of  the  Jesus,  a  worship  that 
did  not  grow  up  gradually,  but  is  full  grown  from  the  very 
earliest  New  Testament  times.  Unless  this  be  explained,  all 
other  explanations,  however  interesting,  lose  their  import- 
ance, for  we  cannot  be  sure  of  the  correctness  of  any  detail 
until  this  central  all-regulative  fact  is  fully  accounted  for. 
Now,  since  this  fact  meets  us  at  the  very  threshold  of 
Christianity,  it  must  find  its  explanation  in  something  pre- 
Christian.  Even  if  we  had  no  evidence  whatever  of  a  pre- 
Christian  Jesus-cult,  we  should  be  compelled  to  affirm  its 
existence  with  undiminished  decision.  A  cult  of  a  deity 
could  not  have  sprung  up  in  a  day  or  in  a  year.  No  con- 
ceivable series  of  events,  even  though  they  were  miracles,  in 
a  short  or  even  a  long  human  life,  could  account  for  the 
worship  by  his  disciples  of  a  mere  man  Jesus,  as  the  highest 
God,  immediately  following  his  execution  and  burial,  and 
still  less  for  his  worship  as  such  and  exaltation  to  the  throne 
of  the  universe,  as  eternally  pre-existent  God,  by  the  perse- 
cutor Saul.  There  must  have  been  a  pre-Christian  cult  of 
a  pre-Christian  divinity.  This  hypothesis  is  absolutely 
unavoidable.  It  meets  you  full  in  the  face  whatever  way 
you  turn.  Moreover,  it  is  overwhelmingly  attested  by  the 
New  Testament  itself,  which  clearly  shows  that  the  cult  was 


ACTIVE  PRINCIPLE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  75 

esoteric  long  before  it  became  exoteric,  that  what  is  commonly 
supposed  to  have  been  the  beginning  of  the  cult  was  merely 
its  bursting  into  full  and  perfect  bloom.  "  First  blade,  then 
ear,  then  full  corn  in  the  ear"  (Mark  iv,  28).  It  is  wholly 
unallowable  to  omit  or  to  reduce  the  preliminary  stages. 

no.  Finally,  the  proclamation  of  monotheism  is  the  only 
adequate  essence  that  can  be  attributed  to  Christianity.  The 
notion  that  this  essence  consists  in  any  kind  of  moral  teaching 
is  utterly  impossible.  The  instinct  of  man  has  always 
rejected,  and  will  always  reject,  any  such  minimisation  and 
degradation  of  the  Gospel  message.  The  Andean,  the 
Himalayan  summits  of  ethics,  are  not  reached  in  the  New 
Testament.  No  such  dizzy  altitudes  of  unmixed  morality 
are  there  attained  as  in  the  second  book  of  the  Republic  of 
Plato.  No  !  The  error  of  criticism  at  this  point  is  fatal ;  its 
malady  is  immedicable.  As  against  the  critics,  the  Church 
is  in  this  regard  eternally  right.  Christianity  is  not 
morality  ;  it  is  religion,  it  is  theoseby — the  worship  of  the 
One  God.'  'Tf  anyone  be  theosebes  and  do  his  will,  him  he 
hears  "  (John  ix,  31). 

111.  Moreover,  it  is  this  content,  and  this  alone,  that  can 
account  for  the  swift  and  tremendous  triumph  of  the  ever- 
lasting Gospel.  What  was  that  "  everlasting  Gospel  "  borne 
on  angel  wings  through  mid-heaven,  and  proclaimed  by 
angel  voice  to  all  dwellers  upon  earth  ?  It  was  exactly  what 
we  have  found  at  every  turn  to  be  the  one  and  only  original 
content  of  Christianity:  "Fear  God  and  give  him  glory" 
(Rev.  xiv,  7).     Behold  the  Siimma  Evangelii! 

112.  No  wonder  that  such  a  gospel,  at  such  a  time,  broke 
the  deep  slumber  of  idolatry  like  a  clap  of  Dantean  thunder. 
And  what  other  proclamation  could  thus  have  roused  a 
world,  dissolved  the  fetters  of  the  tyrannising  demons,  set 
free  the  prisoners  of  superstition,  poured  light  upon  the  eyes 
of  the  blind,  and  called  a  universe  to  life?  Could  any  moral 
precepts  or  ethical  example  have  developed  such  miraculous 
powers?  Assuredly  not !  Nay,  even  if  there  had  been  pro- 
claimed a  new  and  superior  rule  of  life  and  sociologic  system, 

*  For  the  contrast  of  the  religious  with  the  ethical  point  of  view  compare 
the  Gospel  doctrine  of  the  first  commandment  (Mark  xii,  29,  30)  with  Lucan's 
mighty  line  {Phar.  i,  128) :  Victrix  causa  deis  placuit,  sed  victa  Catoni. 


76  PROTO-CHRISTIAN  PROPAGANDA 

it  might  have  offered  themes  for  learned  and  acute  discussion, 
or  even  provided  a  basis  for  wise  legislation  and  righteous 
judgment,  but  nothing  more.  Never  could  it  have  renewed 
the  face  of  creation,  never  have  inspired  whole  armies  of 
martyrs,  never  have  chased  the  demons  into  the  sea.  Who 
has  ever  been  enthused  by  a  doctrine  of  ethics — no  matter 
how  stern  and  awful,  like  the  categorical  imperative  of  Kant ; 
no  matter  how  persuasive  and  winning,  like  the  sentiment- 
alism  of  Shaftesbury  ? 

113.  And  only  consider  how  utterly  absurd  and  nugatory 
would  have  been  any  other  publication  of  a  world-religion  ! 
Let  anyone  imagine  the  Apostles,  like  the  Apologists,  pro- 
claiming the  One  God  as  against  many  idols,  under  the  name 
and  attributes  of  the  all-healing,  all-saving,  demon-expelling 
Jesus.  At  once  we  see  that  arguments  must  have  poured  in 
upon  them  from  every  side  ;  the  arrows  of  thought  must 
have  leaped  in  eager  tempest  from  their  minds.  But  now 
figure  them  setting  forth  the  life  and  character  of  a  Galilean 
peasant,  no  matter  how  beautiful  and  attractive ;  let  us  fancy 
them  preaching  that  they  had  visions  of  him  after  his  death 
on  the  cross ;  let  us  suppose  that  they  called  upon  their 
hearers  to  believe  in  these  visions,  and  to  worship  this  peasant 
as  God  himself,  throned  in  the  highest  heavens  ;  and  let  us 
imagine  them  trying  to  work  all  manner  of  miracles  in  his 
name.  Would  it  have  been  possible  for  any  man  of  even 
ordinary  intelligence  not  to  regard  such  preachers  as  madmen? 
Would  he  not  at  least  have  called  on  them  for  some  slight 
semblance  of  proof  of  these  amazing  pretensions?  And 
what  proofs  could  they  have  produced?  Beyond  their  own 
statements,  absolutely  nothing  whatever !  For  such  a  gospel 
to  have  swept  over  all  the  highly  cultured  Roman  Empire, 
resistless  as  "a  flame  through  fields  of  ripened  corn,"  would 
have  been  a  miracle,  beside  which  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus 
would  vanish  into  nothingness.  No  !  The  original  ever- 
lasting Gospel  was  the  proclamation  (veiled  at  first,  but  after- 
wards open)  of  a  sublime  and  inspiring  faith  and  worship, 
the  cult  of  the  One  God,  the  Jesus,  the  Christ,  the  Saviour, 
the  Guardian,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  whose  name  is 
Everlasting. 


PART  II. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


OLTLvd  ecTTiv  dXXrjyopovixeva. — Gal.  iv,  24. 

PRELIMINARY 

I.  Recently  the  earnest  suggestion  coming  from  high 
sources  has  reached  the  writer,  that  he  should  make 
accessible  to  the  public  some  of  the  more  readily  intelli- 
gible portions  of  the  long  since  accumulated,  and  still 
accumulating,  proofs  of  the  original  pure  Godhead  and 
non-humanity  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  The  wisdom 
of  such  a  suggestion  seems  indisputable  on  reflection  that  no 
one  knows  how  nigh  Azrael  may  be  standing,  and  it  would 
certainly  be  better  to  leave  in  print  some  indications,  however 
inadequate,  of  the  line  of  argument  than  to  leave  practically 
none  at  all.  For  in  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  it  was  only  a  few 
"positive  assertions"  that  were  established  "irrefutably," 
only  a  few  positive  tokens  of  a  pre-Christian  Jesus  and 
Jesus-cult  that  received  any  attention.  Studiously  the 
"  negative  phase  "  was  kept  out  of  sight,  or  at  least  as  far 
in  the  background  as  possible.  Only  in  one  passage,  in  the 
"Vorrede,"  did  this  "negative  phase"  come  to  half-way 
explicit  statement,  and  then  not  as  anything  whose  proof  was 
to  be  attempted  in  the  book  in  question.  In  the  author's 
mind,  indeed,  it  was  far  less  immediate  and  important  than 
the  "  positive  assertions."  That  the  Jesus  was  divine  in  the 
primitive  Christian  conception,  that  from  this  central  and 
original  notion  of  his  divinity  the  whole  Christian  movement 
was  to  be  studied  and  comprehended — this  seemed,  and  still 
seems,  to  the  author  to  be  the  supremely  significant  and 
regulative  fact,  beside  which  the  "negative  phase,"  the  fact 
that  he  was  not  an  historical  man  like  Napoleon  or 
Mohammed,  sinks  into  a  very  secondary  position.  How- 
ever, it  was  not  unnatural,  nor  indeed  unexpected,  that  the 

77 


78  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

majority  would  exactly  reverse  this  relation,  that  they  would 
pass  lightly  over  the  positive  and  dwell  fixedly  on  the 
negative  element. 

2.  Such  being  the  case,  this  latter  could  not,  of  course,  be 
permanently  neglected.  On  the  contrary,  it  called  loudly  for 
the  minutest  and  most  painstaking  treatment,  nor  could  it 
ever  have  been  in  the  mind  of  the  author  to  let  the  reader 
wait  long  for  some  publication  touching  this  more  interesting 
aspect  of  the  matter.  But  just  because  it  was  felt  that  this 
"negative  phase"  required  far  more  thorough-going  treat- 
ment than  was  possible  in  that  book,  the  discussion  of  it  was 
adjourned,  and  consideration  was  confined  strictly  to  the 
"positive  assertions."  So  conscientiously  was  this  programme 
carried  out  that  more  than  one  distinguished  critic  failed  to 
see  the  "  negative  phase"  at  all — e.g,j  the  Abbe  Loisy  in  the 
Revue  Critique  and  the  Rev.  Newton  Mann  in  the  revised 
edition  of  his  Evolution  of  a  Great  Literature — however  much 
both  were  impressed  with  the  "positive  assertions."  Never- 
theless, the  majority  have  undoubtedly  seemed  to  perceive 
this  "  negative  phase,"  if  only  as  a  reticent  and  unregistered 
corollary  from  the  affirmative ;  and  some  have  even  allowed 
that  perception  to  cloud  their  judgment,  as  Wernle,  who 
roars  at  the  book  in  five  columns  of  the  Theologische 
Literaturzeitung, 

3.  But,  however  near-lying  this  corollary,  they  are  right 
who  hold  that  it  is  not  contained  immediately  in  the  positions 
established  in  the  book.  Indubitably  myths  and  legends'  do 
gather  like  clouds  round  the  mountain-high  personalities  of 
history.  So  much  one  may  concede  freely  and  fully,  though 
setting  little  store  by  the  Napoleon  myths,  whether  of  Per^s 
or  of  Whately,  which  are  to  be  regarded  as  trivialities  quite 
unworthy  of  their  authors.  The  fact  that  a  myth,  or  several 
myths,  may  be  found  associated  with  the  name  of  an 
individual  by  no  means  relegates  that  individual  into  the 
class  of  the  unhistorical.  Far  less,  however,  does  it  weigh 
in  favour  of  his  actual  historicity.     If  the  mountain-top  be 

*  Hereby  it  is  not  implied  that  the  present  writer  regards  the  narratives 
concerning  Jesus  as  either  myths  or  legends ;  he  regards  them  as  symbols, 
consciously  chosen  at  first  and  in  some  cases  afterwards  consciously 
elaborated  and  dramatised,  always  with  didactic  purpose. 


PRELIMINARY  79 

there,  the  clouds  will  indeed  gather  round  it :  we  may  often 
explain  the  legends  from  the  presence  of  the  historic 
personality,  mdepe7idently  known  to  be  historic.  But  the 
mere  existence  of  the  clouds  can  never  attest  the  presence  of 
the  mountain  ;  for  clouds  also  gather  over  plains  and  over 
seas.  So,  too,  the  legends  cannot  of  themselves  bear  witness 
to  some  central  underlying  historic  personality ;  for  they 
often  enough  engirdle  a  name  that  is  name  only,  perhaps  of 
a  great  Idea,  but  not  of  any  flesh-and-blood  personality. 
The  arguments,  however,  that  do  seem  to  establish  "  the 
negative  phase"  have  not  yet  been  put  into  print — at  least 
to  my  knowledge — and  are  of  a  nature,  perhaps,  as  yet  rarely 
conjectured.  Some  few  of  them  only,  for  their  name  is 
legion,  it  is  the  object  of  this  work  to  exhibit. 

4.  It  will  be  conceded  that  if  the  Jesus  was  an  historic 
man  of  flesh  and  blood,  then  he  must  have  been  a  most 
remarkable  personality.  Eucken  would  certainly  be  justified 
in  speaking  of  '*  the  supreme  personality  and  the  constructive 
life-work  of  Jesus,"  and  of  his  "incomparable  spiritual 
individuality."  We  may  not  be  able  to  say  just  in  what 
his  distinction  lay,  but  there  can  be  no  question  that  it  must 
have  been  real  and  without  any  historical  parallel.  For  such 
supposed  myths  and  legends  of  miracles,  of  supernatural 
birth,  sacrificial  death,  resurrection,  ascension,  divine  power, 
and  the  like,  could  certainly  not  attach  themselves  quickly  in 
that  age  and  clime  to  any  man  even  of  extraordinary  stamp, 
unless  he  were  beyond  measure  notable  and  distinguished 
from  all  other  men.  Peter,  Paul,  John  the  Baptist,  John  the 
Evangelist,  and  their  peers  were  remarkable  men,  imposing 
personalities.  Yet  we  do  not  hear  very  soon  of  any 
independent  supernatural  exploits  of  these  men  ;  the  miracles 
imputed  to  them  were  comparatively  insignificant,  and 
performed  by  them  in  the  Name  of  Jesus,  or  else  as  his 
representatives.  It  must  be  clear  as  noon  to  any  unpre- 
judiced eye  that  the  Jesus  stands  altogether  alone  in  early 
Christian  story.' 

5.  Even  such  a  character  as  Paul,  whom  some  regard  as 

'  Some  of  the  present  considerations  have  already  been  advanced  under 
another  g-uise  in  this  volume  ;  a  brief  restatement  here  is  necessary  to 
introduce  the  minuter  argument. 


8o  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

the  real  founder  of  Christianity,  and  all  admit  must  have  been 
a  most  noteworthy  person  ;  even  he  and  the  Baptist,  who  was 
remarkable  enough  to  receive  notice  from  Josephus  and  to 
hold  together  for  some  time  a  body  of  disciples  ;  even  they  and 
Peter,  who  attained  such  conspicuous  leadership  among  the 
disciples  and  such  unparalleled  authority  in  the  traditions  of 
the  Church — even  these  cannot  for  an  instant  be  named  in  the 
same  line  with  Jesus,  nor  in  the  second  nor  in  the  third  line 
after  him.  Everyone  must  perceive  that  they  do  not  belong 
in  the  same  class  ;  the  Jesus  is  entirely  sui generis,  altogether 
unique  and  incomparable. 

6.  Now,  if  the  orthodox  position  be  correct,  this  is 
perfectly  intelligible,  and  exactly  as  it  should  be  ;  we  are 
not,  however,  contesting  orthodoxy,  nor  concerned  with  it 
now  and  here.  But  if  the  critical  or  Unitarian  view  be 
correct,  then  this  uniqueness  in  the  representation  of  the 
Jesus  in  early  sources  must  be  accounted  for,  must  be  made 
understandable.  The  only  way  to  account  for  the  utter 
singularity  of  this  early  conception  and  representation  is  to 
suppose  that  the  Jesus  was,  if  not  a  wholly  unique  personality 
(which  would  hardly  differ  from  a  divinity),  yet  at  least  an 
every  way  wonderful  personality,  in  kind  and  degree  far 
surpassing  any  other  of  which  we  have  any  record. 

7.  Such  is,  indeed,  the  thesis  of  modern  liberal  criticism,' 
which  cannot  find  terms  quite  strong  enough  to  express  its 
conception  of  this  amazing  individuality,  which  was  indeed 
(ex  hypothesi)  only  a  man,  and  yet  in  some  mysterious  way 
surpassed  all  other  men,  so  far  as  to  be  deified  shortly  after 
his  humiliating  death,  and  to  inspire  his  most  intimate 
disciples  with  unshakable  faith  in  his  Resurrection  from  the 
grave,  his  ascension  into  heaven,  and  his  co-equality  with 
God  himself  in  the  government  of  the  universe.  Hence 
the  infinitely  minute  and  loving  care  with  which  iki^  character- 
picture  of  the  Jesus,  as  supposedly  given  in  the  New 
Testament,  has  been  studied,  to  discern  and  to  lay  bare  and 
to   exhibit  just   what   was   the    peculiar   distinction   of   this 

^  But  in  its  very  latest  pronouncements,  frightened  at  the  obvious 
consequences  of  its  own  conception  of  the  over-mastering-  personality  of 
Jesus,  it  begins  to  hedge,  and  gravely  to  question  whether  he  was  so  very 
wonderful  after  all  !  whether  not  merely  an  eschatological  enthusiast  ! 


PRELIMINARY  8i 

wondrous  man,  that  made  him  so  unexampled  in  his 
influence  over  men,  and,  if  not  strictly  divine,  yet  so  sur- 
passingly great,  beautiful,  sublime,  attractive,  fascinating — 
away  with  words  ! — so  infinitely  superior  to  all  other  men 
that  even  his  disciples,  who  did  not  at  all  understand  or 
appreciate  him,  could  yet  not  refrain  from  worshipping  him 
as  God. 

8.  We  all  know  what  desperate  and  devoted  endeavours 
of  this  kind  have  been  made,  how  such  men  as  Harnack 
have  struggled  to  discover  and  express  the  essence  of 
Christianity,  how  Chamberlain  has  tried  to  fathom  the 
secret'  of  the  Christus,  and  Keim,  and  Volkmar,  and 
Renan,  and  Bousset,  and  Schmiedel,  and  von  Soden,  and  a 
hundred  others.  It  is  impossible  not  to  admire  the  learning 
and  devotion,  the  zeal  and  the  acumen,  that  they  have 
displayed  in  such  endeavours  ;  it  is  equally  impossible  to 
deny  or  to  disguise  the  fact  that,  one  and  all,  they  have 
been  absolute  failures  ;  the  results  have  been  absurdly  and 
ridiculously  disproportioned  to  the  immense  powers  enlisted 
in  the  attempts.  Parturiiint  monies^  nascitur  ridiculus  mus. 
Never  did  this  line  find  more  perfect  application. 

9.  It  is  forever  impossible  to  find  in  the  Gospel  narrative  1 
— if  we  eliminate  the  supernatural  element,  as  these  critics 
uniformly  do — more  than  (at  the  utmost)  a  very  wise, 
amiable,  admirable,  spiritual,  kind-hearted,  deep-thoughted, 
heavenly-minded,  somewhat  mystical  and  God-intoxicated 
Jewish  Rabbi. ^  Such  men,  like  Gautama,  have  lived  and 
died,  have  gathered  disciples  about  them,  and  been  venerated 

^  This  secret  he  discovers — mirabile  dictu! — in  the  oracle,  "The  Kingdom 
of  heaven  is  within  you" — misunderstood  to  mean  "in  your  hearts,  your 
inmost  selves."  That  such  a  meaning-  is  impossible  is  clear,  from  the  fact 
that  the  Jesus  is  here  (Luke  xvii,  20,  21)  addressing  not  his  disciples,  but  the 
hostile  Pharisees.  The  word  evrds  here  means  not  within^  but  among,  in  the 
midst  of.  The  Kingdom,  at  first  a  secret  society,  was  indeed  unobserved 
among  them.  The  notion  that  this  "  Kingdom  of  heaven  "  is  a  state  of  mind 
(like  Boston),  on  which  Chamberlain  bases  his  whole  interesting  chapter 
on  the  "  incomparable  phenomenon  of  Christ,"  is  indeed  magnificent,  but 
contradicted  scores  of  times  in  the  New  Testament. 

^  Not  even  such  a  character  has  been  deciphered  or  restored  from  the 
New  Testament  records  with  persuasive,  not  to  say  convincing,  clearness. 
The  genial  biographers  and  interpreters  of  the  Jesus,  gazing  steadfastly  into 
the  crystal  sea  of  the  Gospels,  have  beheld  each  his  own  image  transfigured 
in  those  placid  depths.  No  wonder,  then,  that  iheit  Jesusbild  \\bra.ies  between 
the  "  sweet  reasonableness  "  of  Arnold  and  the  "  folic  dissimul^e  "  of  Binet- 
Sangl^. 

G 


82  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

by  these  disciples  for  many  years  ;  at  death  they  have  been 
mourned  for  many  days  and  months,  their  memory  has  been 
cherished,  their  ipse  dixit  has  become  authoritative,  and 
perhaps  exaggerated  stories,  or  even  miraculous  legends, 
have  gradually  gathered  about  their  names.  Had  the 
disciples  of  the  Jesus  done  any  or  all  of  these  things,  or 
even  much  of  some  similar  kind,  then  the  theory  of  the  noble 
and  lovable  Rabbi  might  be  readily  accepted. 

10.  But  the  fact  is  that  they  did  (so  far  as  we  can  ascertain) 
nothing  of  the  kind  at  all.  The  criticism  we  are  criticising 
discloses  in  the  conduct  of  the  disciples  none  of  the  features 
that  would  have  been  natural  and  inevitable  in  the  conduct 
of  Jewish  disciples  of  a  beloved  Rabbi.  Neither  the  record 
as  it  stands  nor  the  record  as  purged,  purified,  and  recreated 
by  the  critics  can  show  any  natural  procedure  on  the  part  of 
these  supposed  loving  disciples  of  a  loving  Rabbi. 

11.  What  (according  to  the  critics)  do  they  do?  They 
have  visions  of  their  master;  they  believe  he  has  risen  from 
the  dead  and  ascended  to  heaven  ;  they  begin  to  preach  an 
elaborate  system  of  salvation,  and  to  work  miracles  in  his 
name  !  All  attempts  to  understand  such  a  procedure  as  the 
result  of  impressions  made  on  the  minds  of  the  disciples  by  a 
few  months'  conversation  with  a  Jewish  Rabbi  are  worse  than 
futile.  As  well  might  we  suppose  that  under  the  delirium  of 
their  memories  they  would  have  tried  to  jump  to  the  moon  ! 

12.  This  is  not  nearly  all,  however.  It  happens  that  we 
have  positive  proof  that  this  association  and  resulting 
impression  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  personal 
discipleship,  with  devotion  to  the  Christian  propaganda  and 
consecration  to  the  cause  and  worship  of  Jesus.  For  the 
greatest  of  all  the  Apostles,  who  in  zeal  and  self-sacrifice,  as 
well  as  in  success,  far  outran  all  the  rest,  the  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  was  not  a  personal  disciple  of  the  Jesus,  whom 
apparently  he  never  met  in  the  flesh,  against  whose  ostensible 
personal  following  he  is  represented  as  violently  enraged. 
Here,  then,  is  demonstration  that  the  very  strongest  personal 
attachment  to  the  Jesus,  the  very  liveliest  affection  for  the 
Jesus,  did  not  imply  any  knowledge  whatever  of  him  as  a 
man.  Now,  we  ask,  if  we  must  explain  the  unparalleled 
enthusiasm   of    Paul    for  the    Jesus    as    enthusiasm    for  a 


PRELIMINARY  83 

heavenly  Being,  whom  he  had  never  known  as  an  earthly 
man,  why  may  we  not  explain  the  milder  enthusiasm  of 
Peter  and  John  similarly?  What  do  we  gain  by  imagining 
a  wonderful  human  personality  to  account  for  their  devotion, 
when  we  must  account  for  a  higher  devotion  without 
reckoning  with  any  such  personality  at  all  ?  This  con- 
sideration seems  perfectly  decisive  against  the  supposed 
need  of  a  wondrous  human  personality  to  explain  the  conduct 
of  the  disciples. 

13.  But  an  even  weightier  consideration  is  yet  to  follow. 
The  critics  would  outvie  each  other  in  exalted  conceptions  of 
this  man,  the  Jesus.  No  one  denies  or  will  deny  that  the 
human  personality,  if  such  there  was,  must  have  been  in  the 
highest  degree  extraordinary.  If  the  miracles  were  actually 
performed,  then  the  fame  of  the  wonder-worker  must  have 
been  very  great.  It  must  have  reached  the  ears  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  alike  throughout  Palestine,  as  indeed  is  expressly  said 
in  the  Gospels.  In  that  case  it  would  seem  exceeding  strange 
that  no  hint  of  such  a  prodigy  meets  us  anywhere  in  con- 
temporaneous records,  especially  nowhere  in  Josephus. 
Some  early  Christian  must  have  felt  this  lacuna  keenly,  for 
he  has  filled  it  up  with  the  well-known  interpolation 
{Ant.  xviii,  3,  3),  wherein  the  hand  of  the  Christian  is 
plainly  to  be  seen.  Josephus  has  not  failed  to  tell  us  of  John 
the  Baptist,  and  behold  a  greater  than  the  Baptist  is  here. 
Why,  then,  did  he  not  mention  some  of  the  astounding  events 
that  mark  the  career  of  the  Jesus  ?  The  only  answer  is  that 
he  was  unfriendly  to  the  Christians,  and  did  not  care  to  honour^ 
them  with  any  notice.  But  such  an  inadequate  answer  would 
be  neither  suggested  nor  accepted,  except  in  the  case  of 
dire  need  and  the  lack  of  any  other.  Similar  and  of  similar 
significance  is  the  silence  of  the  contemporary  Jewish 
historian  Justus,  as  attested  by  Photius,  and  of  Philo,  the 
Jewish  Plato. 

14.  However,  the  critics  whom  we  have  in  mind  will 
reply  that  the  mighty  works  of  the  Gospel  were  wrought  only 
in  the  imagination  of  the  writers,  that  Josephus  and  Justus 
and  Philo  did  not  allude  to  them,  for  the  very  good  reason 
that  they  were  later  inventions  of  the  evangelical  fancy. 
Even   though  as   much   should   be   granted,  it  would   still 


84  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

remain  true  that  the  personality  must  have  been  all  the  more 
remarkable^  it  m,ust  have  been  superhumanly  wonderful^  to 
have  gathered  round  it  so  speedily  such  an  unprecedented 
nimbus  of  miracles.  The  elision  of  the  many  miracles  does 
not  mend  matters  at  all ;  it  merely  makes  the  One  Miracle 
still  more  stupendous.  Well,  such  a  marvellous  character 
must  have  attracted  wide  attention,  and  his  crucifixion  must 
have  been  a  notable  occurrence:  why,  then,  does  not 
Josephus,  why  does  not  Justus,  why  does  not  any  profane 
authority  mention  it?' 

-     WITNESS  OF  ACTS 

15.  All  this,  however,  is  only  preliminary.  We  come 
now  to  the  vital  point.  Such  an  unexampled  personage  as 
the  Jesus  is  universally  assumed  to  have  been  must  have 
made  the  deepest  impression  on  the  minds  of  his  disciples. 
Why^  then,  do  we  find  no  traces  of  any  such  impression  ?  It  is 
a  fact  that  in  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  as  recorded  in 
Acts,  we  can  discover  practically  no  marks  whatever  of  any 
personal  acquaintance  with  the  Jesus.  The  preaching  of 
Peter  and  Stephen  and  Philip  stands  upon  the  same  footing, 
revolves  in  the  same  circle,  with  that  of  Paul.  They  appeal 
to  the  Scriptures,  to  certain  necessities  of  exegesis,  but  never 
to  any  biographical  facts  of  their  own  knowledge.  They 
never  say.  We  heard  the  Jesus  say  this  and  this,  nor  We  saw 
him  do  so  and  so.  No  one  can  get  the  impression  from 
reading  Peter's  speeches  that  he  is  talking  about  a  marvellous 
man,  the  Jesus,  whom  he  had  known  and  loved.  The  allu- 
sions to  "  signs  and  wonders  "  and  the  ''  hanging  on  a  tree  '* 
are  merely  perfunctory  or  else  dogmatic. 

16.  In  one  single  passage,  strongly  interpolated  and 
quite  unparsable,  the  Jesus  is  indeed  described  in  these 
words:  "Jesus,  him  of  Nazareth,  how  God  anointed  him 
with  holy  spirit  and  with  power,  who  traversed  benefiting 
and  healing  all  those  dominated  by  the  Devil,  because  God 
was  with  him,  and  we  (are)  witnesses  of  all  that  he  did,  both 
in  the  land  of  the  Jews  and  in  Jerusalem,  whom  also  they 

*  Elsewhere  in  this  book  the  reader  will  find  the  "  Silence  of  Josephus  " 
discussed  at  length. 


WITNESS  OF  ACTS  85 

executed,  having  hung  upon  wood.  This  one  God  raised  on 
the  third  day  and  gave  him  to  be  made  manifest,  not  to  all 
the  people,  but  to  witnesses,  those  predesignated  by  God,  us 
who  ate  and  drank  with  him  after  he  arose  from  (the)  dead." 
So  it  is  written.  But  that  Peter  never  pronounced  it  thus 
is  certain  ;  for  he  would  hardly  have  spoken  even  in  that 
presence  of  the  deeds  of  Jesus  **in  the  land  of  the  Jews  and  in 
Jerusalem,"  since  those  deeds  were  not  done  in  **the  land  of 
the  Jews  "  (even  if  Peter  could  have  used  such  an  expression), 
but  were  practically  peculiar  to  Galilee. 

17.  Moreover,  the  critics  against   whom   these   lines  are 
levelled  cannot  admit  that  Peter  could  speak  of  eating  and 
drinking  with  the  risen  Jesus;  by  no  stretch  of  the  imagination 
could  he  and  the  rest  {"  we  ")  eat  and  drink  wM  a  vision  (such 
as  these  critics  esteem  the  Risen  to  have  been).     Plainly  the  I 
passage  has  been  worked  over  by  a  later  hand,  and  illustrates 
the  extremely  significant  fact  that  the  earliest  documents  con- li 
tain  in  effect  no  reference  to  the  human  but  only  to  the  divine// 
Jesus,,  whereas  the  humanisation   of  this  divinity  proceeds 
apace' as  we  descend  the  stream  of  tradition.     This  fact  is 
vividly  exemplified  in  the  Gospels.     What  clearer  indication 
could  be  given  of  the  primitive  divinity  of  the  Jesus? 

18.  The  main  point,  however,  lies  in  the  two  words 
"traversed  benefiting"  (went  about  doing  good).^  This 
phrase  is  supposed  to  be  peculiarly  descriptive  of  the  Jesus 
as  pre-eminently  the  good  man,  going  hither  and  thither, 
doing  good  wherever  opportunity  offered.  It  is  true  that  the 
Gospels  supply  no  basis  for  this  conception,  but  it  certainly 
is  the  conception  not  only  prevailing  at  present,  but  established 
and  almost  exclusive. 

19.  Let  us  consider,  however.  The  Greek  word"  does 
not  mean  "went  about";"  it  means  "went  through," 
"traversed."  It  would  be  hard  to  find  a  certain  example  in 
Greek  literature  of  this  word  used  of  a  person  in  the  sense  of 
"go  about,"  though  it  may  in  a  very  few  cases  have  some 
such  object  as  the  land  or  his  life  omitted,  to  be  supplied 
from  the  context.  Thus  in  Acts  viii.  4  we  read :  "  They 
therefore   having  been   scattered   went   through    (the    land) 

$iri\Qev  evepyerwv.  '  diijXdev, 


86  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

preaching  the  word,"'  and  the  verb  should  perhaps  be 
rendered  departed^  as  it  was  rendered  in  Acts  xiii,  14,  where 
the  revisers  render  it  by  passing  through^  as  also  in  viii,  40. 
If  the  word  means  this  and  not  "  went  about "  in  Acts  xiii,  14, 
and  viii,  40,  it  seems  hard  to  find  good  reason  for  rendering  it 
by  "  went  about"  in  viii,  4  and  x,  38. 

20.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  kernel  of  the  matter  is  this  :  the 
term  "  benefiting """  is  a  favourite  technical  word  in  the 
Gnosticism  of  Basilides,  where  it  is  continually  used  in  con- 
nection with  the  "Sonship."  In  describing  the  function  of 
the  Jesus,  he  declares  (according  to  Hippolytus,  Ref.  vii,  27)  : 
"  And  through  him  was  purified  the  Sonship  the  third,  that 
had  been  left  behind  for  the  benefiting  and  being  benefited, ^ 
and  ascended  toward  the  blessed  Sonship  through  all  these 
traversing. "4  Again  (vii,  26),  he  says  that  "  all  the  Sonship 
that  had  been  left  for  benefiting  the  souls  in  Formlessness^ 
and  being  benefited,  having  been  transformed  followed  the 
Jesus,"  &c.  Again  (vii,  22)  :  '*  Basilides  calls  such  not  wind, 
but  holy  spirit,  which  the  Sonship  benefits,  having  put  it  on, 
and  is  benefited."  Again  (vii,  25),  speaking  of  the  entrance 
of  the  Gospel  into  the  world  (which  is  little  different  from  the 
entry  of  the  Jesus),  Basilides  declares,  it  ''traversed^  every 
Principality  and  Authority  and  Dominion  and  every  Name 
named,  and  it  came  in  reality  though  nought  descended  from 
above. "  These  few  examples  show  that  the  terms  ''  benefiting  " 
and  "  traversed  "  were  technical  with  Basilides  in  speaking  of 
the  Sonship.  The  same  notion  of  "traversing"  is  found  in 
Heb.  iv,  14  :  "  Having  therefore  a  great  High  Priest  that  has 
traversed^  the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,"  &c. 

21.  Of  course,  these  notions  were  not  original  with 
Basilides,  great  organiser  of  thought  though  he  was.  In 
the  Naassene  Hymn,^  which  such  as  Harnack  and  Preuschen 
recognise  as  ''very  old,"  which  there  is  no  reason  whatever 
for  regarding  as  post-Christian,  we  read  of  this  same  Jesus, 


^  Though  here  ^  reads  ^\Qov  and  not  St^XdoVy  so  that  either  the  ]j>^-scribe  is 
correct,  in  which  case  diyfKdov  is  an  error,  or  else  is  a  corrector  of  dtijXdov, 
which  he  felt  to  be  an  error — for  mere  carelessness  on  his  part  is  unlikely. 

=*  evepyerwv.  3  irpbs  rb  ei/efyyerelv  Kai  eiefyyeretadai.  '♦  SteXdovaa. 

5  els  rb  eiiep-yeTeiv  ^  dcrjXde.  7  5i€Xr]Xvd6Ta. 

s  Hilg-enfeld  (K.d.  U.,  p.  260):  "Welcher  freilich  der  alteren  Gnosis  noch 
naher  steht";  and  this  "elder  Gnosis"  w&s proto-Chrtsttan. 


WITNESS  OF  ACTS  87 

in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  viewing  sympathetically  the  woe 
of  the  world  (polytheism),  and  declaring  he  will  descend 
through  all  the  aeons  to  the  rescue  of  humanity  (from 
idolatry) : — 

Therefore  send  me,  Father  ; 

Bearing-  seals  I  shall  descend, 

^ons  all  I  shall  fare  through,^ 

Mysteries  all  I  shall  open  up. 

Forms  of  gods  I  shall  show  ; 

And  the  secrets  of  the  holy  way, 

Having  called  it  Gnosis,  I  shall  deliver  up. 

Here    the    case    is   presented    in   elemental   form,    with   all 
desirable  clearness  ;  the  Jesus  is  to  issue  from   the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  is  to  fare  through  all  the  asons  on  his  mission 
of  mercy,  and  descend  to  men  on  earth  below  to  save  them 
through  the  holy  way  of  the  Gnosis,  or,  as  we  should  now  say, 
of  the  Gospel  (compare  ''Gnosis  of  salvation,"  Luke  i,  77).^     y^ 
22.  Inasmuch  as  it  seems  morally  certain  that  these  oldest    I 
of  the  Gnostics  were  pre-Christian, ^  it  would  appear  estab-    / 
lished  that  this  idea  of  traversing  (or  faring  through)  benefiting   I 
is  a  pre-Christian   idea,  and   refers  primarily,   not  to  going 
about  the  country  of  Galilee  doing  little  deeds  of  kindness  (a 
relatively  modern  conception  of  which  there  is  no  sign  in  the 
Gospel),  but  to  the  infinitely  sublimer  outward  transit  of  the 
divine  Jesus  earthward,  through  the  aeons  that  envelop  like  so 
many  concentric  spherical  shells  the  central  Godhead  Supreme. 
Here  is  a  thought  really  worthy  of  those  ancient  profound 
theosophists  who  said  "  Beginning  of  perfection  is  knowledge 
of  man,  but  knowledge  of  God  is  perfection  consummated"; 
whereas  the  ordinary  notion,  which  degrades  the  Jesus  into 

^  5io5ei;<rw. 

^  In  Theol.  Rundschau  (Oct.,  191 1,  p.  384)  the  editor,  Professor  Bousset,  in 
an  article  notable  for  its  concessions  to  "  D.  v.  J.",  suspects  the  text  of  this 
Hymn,  and  suggests  "  Spake  then  Nus "  {pk{p)vov%)  in  lieu  of  "  Spake  then 
Jesus  "  (StTjo-ous).  A  counsel  of  despair,  but,  as  Bousset  himself  "  lays  no  weight  " 
thereon,  enough  to  remark  that,  if  he  were  right,  Nus,  like  Logos,  would  be 
only  another  name  for  Jesus,  and  the  situation  would  hardly  be  altered.  B. 
thinks  the  Naassenes  certainly  "  Christian";  and  if  he  means  proto-Christian, 
who  would  deny?  They  were  the  first  Gnostics,  "and  as,  indeed,  is  self- 
evident,  progenitors  of  Gnosticism"  (Badham,  Theol.  Tijdsch.^  191 1>  p*  420)  ; 
and  the  Gnosis  was  an  early  name  for  the  Christian  movement. 

3  "So  out  'bf  this  conception  arose  the  pair  of  notions  •pneurtiatic'  and 
*  psychic,'  even  before  Paul ;  that  Gnosticism,  in  its  fundamental  conceptions, 
antedates  this  apostle  is  also  lexically  established  "  (Reitzenstein,  Die  Helle- 
nistichen  Mysterie7ireligionen), 


88  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

something  like  a  benevolent  dervish,  seems  to  be  a  positive 
profanation. 

23.  Some  will,  of  course,  say  that  Basilides  took  these 
terms  from  Acts  x,  38  ;  but  this  is  entirely  inconceivable. 
The  evolution  of  the  Gnostic  systems  from  the  New  Testa- 
pent  is  quite  unthinkable,  and  unbiassed  critics  are  per- 
ceiving every  day  more  clearly  that  Gnosticism  antedates 
Christianity  ;  and  the  writer  seems  to  have  proved  clearly  in 
a  work  (yet  in  MS.)  on  "  Gnostic  Elements  in  the  New 
Testament"  that  the  New  Testament  parallels  to  preserved 
Gnostic  passages  are  almost  Vrthout  exception  younger  than 
their  Gnostic  correspondents.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
the  connection  is  uniformly  better  in  the  Gnostic  context,  and 
the  passage  much  more  intelligible.^     Now,  the  context  in 

^  This  proposition  seems  quite  too  important  to  be  left  hung  on  the  air  ;  the 
supports  are  to  be  found  in  a  careful  analysis  of  scores  of  parallels  in  the 
Gnostic  writings  and  the  New  Testament,  which  is,  of  course,  impossible  in 
this  connection.  One  striking  example  is  given  later  (p.  133)  in  the  discussion 
of  the  Ektroma.  A  single  additional  illustration  may  suffice  to  show  the 
nature  of  the  proof  elaborated  in  the  unpublished  work  already  mentioned. 

In  Col.  ii,  8-15  occurs  a  passage  of  deepest  darkness.  It  seems  really 
amazing  that  anyone  could  write  sentence  after  sentence  of  such  impenetrable 
obscurity  ;  in  fact,  it  appears  psychologically  impossible  that  any  teacher  such 
as  the  epistolist  certainly  was  should  address  such  things  to  a  consciousness 
that  had  not  long  been  familiar  with  a  great  body  of  doctrine  in  which  the 
mysterious  phrases  used  were  catchwords,  meaningless  to  us,  but  full  ot 
meaning  to  the  persons  addressed,  faintly  suggesting  the  technical  terminology 
now  current  among  the  followers  of  Mrs.  Eddy.  It  is  especially  verses  13-15 
that  we  must  now  consider:  "And  you,  being  dead  through  your  trespasses 
and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  you  did  he  quicken  together  with  him, 
having  forgiven  us  all  our  trespasses  ;  having  blotted  out  the  bond  written  in 
ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which  was  contrary  to  us  :  and  he  hath  taken 
it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  the  cross  ;  having  put  off  from  himself  the 
principalities  and  the  powers,  he  made  a  show  of  them  openly,  triumphing 
over  them  in  it."  Notice  the  want  of  connection  in  thought.  Verse  14  speaks, 
apparently,  of  the  abolition  of  the  Law,  abolished  through  the  death  on  the 
cross  ;  this  might  be  understood.  But  v.  15  straightway  turns  the  thought 
into  a  wholly  different  channel  :  "  having  stripped  off  (as  a  garment)  the 
principalities,"  &c.  The  text  is  very  uncertain,  as  might  be  expected.  Some 
witnesses  omit  "  the  principalities  and  the  powers,"  others  add  "  the  flesh." 
So  the  Fathers  understood  it,  as  testify  the  phrases  exuens  se  came,  spolians  se 
came,  exutus  carnem,  exutionem  corporis.  This  putting  off"  the  flesh  on  the 
cross  seems  intelligible,  but  putting  off"  principalities  and  powers — !  Again, 
the  nailing  of  '•^ the  manuscript"  (of  the  Law)  to  the  cross  is  a  bewildering 
phrase.  Such  treatment  of  a  manuscript  looks  far  more  like  publication, 
official  proclamation,  than  annulment.  Common  sense  seems  to  cry  out  that 
it  was  his  body  that  was  nailed  to  the  cross,  and  that  the  original  reference 
must  have  been  to  the  body. 

Now  turn  for  a  moment  to  the  Docetic  doctrine  reported  by  Hippolytus, 
He/.,  viii,  10  :  "  Having  come  from  above,  he  put  on  the  begotten  (body)  and 
did  all  things  just  as  has  been  written  in  the  Gospels  ;  he  washed  (himself)  in 
Jordan,  but  he  washed,  having  received  type  and  seal,  in  the  water,  of  the 


WITNESS  OF  REVELATION  AND  HEBREWS  89 

which  the  passage  can  be  best  understood  is  the  original 
context ;  it  is  transference  and  adaptation  to  new  surroundings 
that  make  it  unnatural  and  bewildering.  Hence  we  conclude 
that  the  phrase  "  traversed  benefiting "  has  been  taken  from 
Gnosticism  and  applied  to  the  Jesus  in  this  ostensible  speech 
of  Peter.  That  such  spiritual  benefiting  was  really  in  the 
writer's  mind  is  shown  further  by  the  following  explicative 
clause:  "and  healing  all  those  dominated  by  the  Devil" — 
where  the  "and"  seems  to  be  emphatic  and  to  mean  "that 
is";  and  the  casting-out  of  demons  (as  we  shall  see)  is 
nothing  less  than  the  overthrow  of  idolatry,  the  conquest 
of  the  heathen  gods,  which  is  here,  as  everywhere  in  the 
early  apologists,  correctly  reckoned  as  the  specific  mission 
and  activity  of  the  Jesus. 

WITNESS  OF  REVELATION  AND  HEBREWS 

24.  When  now  we  inquire  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  report 
is  not  different.     However  many  details  about  this  book  may 

body  beg-otten  from  the  Virgin,  in  order  that,  when  the  Archon  should  condemn 
his  own  proper  figment  to  death,  to  the  cross,  that  soul  nourished  in  the  body, 
having  put  off  the  body,  and  having  nailed  it  to  the  cross,  and  having  triumphed 
through  it  over  the  principalities  and  the  powers,  might  not  be  found  naked, 
but  might  put  on,  instead  of  that  flesh,  the  body  typified  in  the  water  when  he 
was  baptised." 

Surely  no  fair-minded  man  can  deny  that  this  passage,  however  fantastic, 
is  clear  as  noonday,  compared  with  the  Colossian  text.  The  Docetist  held 
that  the  baptism  in  the  Jordan  was  a  symbolism  expressing  the  putting  on  by 
the  Jesus  of  another  (spiritual)  body,  the  type  and  seal  of  the  body  derived 
from  the  Virgin  ;  when  this  latter  (body)  was  nailed  to  the  cross,  the  Jesus 
stripped  it  off  from  himself,  but  was  not  left  a  naked  (disembodied)  spirit  ;  on 
the  contrary,  was  still  clothed  in  the  spiritual  body  that  he  had  put  on  in 
baptism  ;  and  by  means  of  this  spiritual  body,  he  triumphed  over  all  the 
principalities  and  powers  led  by  the  Archon,  which  had  thought  to  end  his  life 
on  the  cross,  but  had  merely  succeeded  in  destroying  a  flesh-body,  leaving  the 
true  spirit-body  intact  and  triumphant.  The  doctrine  is  so  plain  and  self- 
consistent  as  to  need  no  further  commentary. 

Notice,  now,  that  the  Docetic  and  the  Colossian  passage  cannot  be 
unrelated — the  verbal  agreements  are  altogether  too  close.  Such  extra- 
ordinary phrases  as  "having  stripped  off  the  body,  and  having  nailed  it  to 
the  wood  "  {direKdvaafx^pr]  rb  (rQfxa  Kal  irpoarfkfhcraaa  irpbs  rd  ^ij\ov),  and  "  having 
triumphed  through  it  over  the  principalities  and  the  powers  "  {dpiafjL^eOa-aa-a 
5t'  aiiTov  ras  dpxds  Kal  rds  i^ovalas),  could  never  have  originated  twice  inde- 
pendently. They  are  not  difficult,  but  perfectly  natural  in  the  Docetic  context ; 
they  are  not  only  unnatural,  but  virtually  incomprehensible  in  Colossians.  The 
inference  is  obvious.  Moreover,  that  the  Docetist  is  not  quoting  from  the 
Epistle  is  clear  to  see  in  the  fact  that  no  allusion  is  made  to  it,  but  instead 
there  is  a  very  different  reference — namely  :  "  This  it  is,"  he  (the  Docetist)  says, 
"  that  the  Saviour  speaks.  Unless  one  be  born  of  water  and  spirit,  one  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens,  because  the  begotten  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh  " — closely  agreeing  with  John  iii,  5,  6. 


90  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

remain  in  doubt,  despite  the  most  learned  and  illuminating 
labours  of  a  host  of  savants,  it  is  enough  for  our  purpose 
that  it  represents,  at  least  in  part,  a  comparatively  early  stage 
of  the  Propaganda.  Now  what  is  the  figure  of  the  Jesus  in 
this  volume?  Four  times  the  name  appears  with  the  suffix 
Christ,  and  ten  times  without.  In  none  of  these  cases  is 
there  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  personality  or  the  life- 
history  of  the  Jesus.  Six  times  the  phrase  is  **  witness^  of 
Jesus";  once  it  is  ''Jesus  Christ  the  witness,^  the  faithful"; 
once  it  is  "those  keeping  the  commandments  of  God  and  the 
faith  of  Jesus  " ;  twice  it  is  "  the  Lord  Jesus " ;  once  "  the 
blood  of  the  witnesses  of  Jesus";  once  it  is  ''Revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ";  once  it  is  "I  Jesus  sent  mine  angel";  once 
it  is  simply  "  In  Jesus."  This  witness,  then,  to  the  human 
personality  of  the  Jesus  is  zero. 

25.   But  far  more  conspicuous  than  Jesus  in  this  Apocalypse 
is   the   Little   Lamb,^  occurring  twenty-eight  times.     This 

The  state  of  the  case  now  seems  plain  enough  :  the  Docetic  doctrine  and 
phraseology  were  known  to  the  epistolist ;  the  latter  pleased  him,  the  former 
did  not.  He  attempted  to  bring  in  the  high-flown  Docetic  expressions  in 
speaking  of  a  wholly  different  theme,  the  abolition  (by  the  Jesus-cult)  of  the 
religious  distinction  of  Jew  and  Gentile.  Hence  he  talks  of  him  as  having 
nailed  the  hand-writing  (the  Law)  to  the  cross  (which  is  utterly  inappropriate), 
and  of  having  stripped  off  the  principalities  and  the  powers  (which  is  senseless), 
of  his  having  triumphed  over  them  (where  ayroi^s  is  of  wrong  gender  and  the 
whole  is  unthinkable),  and  finally  he  throws  in  the  enigmatic  "  he  patterned  in 
frankness  "  (which  is  words).  The  Fathers  felt  that  the  thing  "  stripped  off  " 
could  not  be  the  principalities,  but  must  be  the  flesh  or  body ;  yet  the  instant 
you  insert  such  a  term  you  are  thrown  back  upon  Docetic  ground — the  Jesus 
is  represented  as  stripping  off'  his  body  (or  flesh)  on  the  cross,  and  hence 
leaving  it  nailed  there  to  the  wood. 

That  some  such  idea  was  animating  the  author  of  Colossians  is  also  seen 
in  a  phrase  in  ii,  11  :  "And  ye  are  fulfilled  in  him,  who  is  the  head  of  every 
principality  and  power,  in  whom  also  ye  were  circumcised  with  circumcision 
not  made  with  hands,  in  the  stripping  off  of  the  body  of  the  fleshy  in  the  circum- 
cision of  the  Christ,  having  been  consepulchred  with  him  in  the  baptism." 
These  lofty-sounding  but  discordant  phrases  have  little  meaning  in  their  own 
context.  On  their  face  it  appears  that  they  have  been  transplanted  from  their 
native  soil  to  their  present  surroundings,  where  they  look  odd  and  do  not 
thrive. 

Possibly  someone  may  cavil  at  the  Docetic  statement  *'  that  soul  nourished 
in  the  body,  having  stripped  off  the  body  and  having  nailed  it  to  the  wood," 
and  may  object  that  the  executioners,  and  not  "that  soul,"  nailed  it.  Let  such 
an  one  reflect  that  the  sublime  primitive  conception  was  that  of  the  self- 
immolation  of  a  suffering  high-priest,  and  that  in  any  case  "  that  soul "  might 
easily  have  been  spoken  of  as  nailing,  had  it  only  permitted  the  nailing. 

This  example,  only  one  of  many,  shows  unmistakably  that  favourite 
expressions  have  been  borrowed  from  the  Gnostics,  appropriated  by  the 
epistolists,  and  converted  to  strictly  ecclesiastical  use. 

^  fiaprvpia.  ^  fxaprvs.  3  dpvloy. 


WITNESS  OF  REVELATION  AND  HEBREWS  91 

Lamb  is  introduced  (v,  6)  as  a  sacrifice,  "  a  Lamb  standing 
as  having  been  slain,  having  horns  seven  and  eyes  seven, 
which  are  the  seven  spirits  of  God  sent  forth  into  all  the 
earth."  Here  the  suggestion  of  the  Gospel  narrative  and  the 
modern  Unitarian  conception  seems  to  be  vanishingly  slight. 
But  in  xiii,  8  the  whole  matter  is  made  reasonably  clear  : 
"  And  shall  worship  him  all  the  dwellers  on  the  earth  of 
whom  hath  not  been  writ  his  name  in  the  book  of  the  life  of 
the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world."  Here  the  whole  evangelic  story,  conceived  as 
history,  seems  forever  excluded.  By  no  possibility  can  the 
supposed  death  of  the  Jesus  a  few  years  before  be  described 
as  a  slaying  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  To  say  that 
he  had  been  slain  in  the  counsels  of  God  is  imposition,  not 
exposition,  of  meaning.  Of  course,  the  critics  refer  the 
phrase  to  "hath  been  written,"  transposing  so  as  to  read 
"  whose  name  hath  not  been  written  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world."  But  this  is  only  a  makeshift,  a  forced  exegesis, 
and  does  not  really  mend  matters.  The  notion  of  the  names 
being  written  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  in  the  Lamb's 
Book  of  Life  still  leaves  the  Lamb  and  his  Book  of  Life  there 
in  heaven  since  the  foundation  of  the  world,  which  in  no 
wise  rhymes  with  the  conception  of  the  Gospel  as  history. 

26.  Turning  now  to  the  first  chapter,  we  find  another 
different  conception  of  the  same  character,  "  one  like  Son  of 
Man  clothed  full  length  and  girt  at  the  breasts  with  golden 
girdle  ;  and  his  head  and  hairs  white,  as  white  wool,  as 
snow,  and  his  eyes  like  flame  of  fire,  and  his  feet  like 
burnished  brass,  as  refined  in  a  furnace,  and  his  voice  as 
voice  of  many  waters,  and  having  in  his  right  hand  stars 
seven,  and  out  of  his  mouth  a  sword  two-edged  sharp 
proceeding,  and  his  visage  as  the  sun  shines  in  his  might." 
This  fearful  vision  describes  himself  thus  :  "  I  am  the  First 
and  the  Last  and  the  living — and  was  dead,  and  lo,  living 
am  I  unto  the  aeons  of  the  asons — and  have  the  keys  of  death 
and  Hades."  Without  detailed  interpretation  it  is  plain  that 
this  being  is  supernal,  over-earthly,  and  in  no  particular 
suggests  the  so-called  historic  Jesus. 

27.  But  does  he  not  say  "I  was  dead"?  Certainly. 
True,  the   whole  clause,    from   "and   was"   to   "seons,"  is 


92  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

perhaps  interpolation  ;  but  the  death,  the  sacrificial  death  of 
the  Jesus,  is  certainly  part  of  this  whole  tremendous  doctrine. 
Yet  this  by  no  means  implies  that  there  is  any  reference  to 
the  crucifixion  of  a  man  Jesus  at  Jerusalem.  The  Jesus 
being  a  divine  personality  variously  and  titanically  conceived 
— now  as  a  Lamb,  now  as  a  High  Priest,  now  as  Alpha  and 
Omega,  now  as  Son  of  Man,  amid  the  candlesticks — this 
sacrifice,  this  death,  this  resuscitation  are  all  to  be  under- 
stood as  supernal,  over-earthly  transactions,  extra-spatial  and 
extra-temporal,  and  by  no  means  necessarily  carried  out  here 
on  the  Palestinian  stage. 

28.  If  one  asks  just  how  this  sacrifice  was  effected,  the 
answer  must  be  that  the  question  is  unreasonable.  The 
writers  themselves  had  no  clear  ideas  on  the  subject.  They 
were  dealing  with  vast  and  vague  notions  of  heavenly 
happenings,  of  which  it  was  impossible  to  form  any  exact 
Gaussian  " constructible  mental  image."  Deity  dying  and 
coming  to  life,  the  great  High  Priest  offering  up  himself,  the 
Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world — such  gigantic 
conceptions  defy  the  limitations  of  sense-presentment* 
What  happens  when  serious  attempt  is  made  to  depict  them 
historically  may  be  seen  in  the  Gospels. 

29.  This  self-immolation  of  the  great  High  Priest  is 
treated  at  length  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  but  I  hardly 
think  that  even  Delitzsch  or  Harnack  would  contend  that 
any  idea  has  been  made  quite  clear.  The  point^is  that  the 
representation  therein  given,  as  everywhere  in  the  New 
Testament  outside  the  Gospels,  does  not  seem  to  presuppose 
any  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  or  of  the  Gospel  story.  It  is 
far  vaguer  than  this  latter^  nor  does  it  make  the  faintest 
allusion  to  the  Gospel  delineation.  It  is  not  merely  that  the 
writers  do  not  seem  to  have  read  the  Gospels,  they  have  no 
conception  of  the  existence  of  any  Gospel  account,  nor  is 
there  the  slightest  reference  to  any  such  personality  as  we 
find  depicted  in  the  Gospels.  Thus  the  letter  to  the  Hebrews 
has  much  to  say  of  this  great  High  Priest,  who  offers  up 
himself,  who  suffers  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  &c.  But  he  is 
"an  High  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedec,"  who,  being 
"  without  father,  without  mother,  without  genealogy,  having 
neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life,  but  made  like  to 


WITNESS  OF  REVELATION  AND  HEBREWS         93 

the  Son  of  God,  abideth  a  priest  continually"  (vii,  3). 
Clearly,  then,  we  are  dealing  in  this  High  Priest  with  a 
strictly  supernatural  being  ;  we  see  here  the  beginning  of  a 
doctrine  that  this  being  had  to  become  flesh  and  offer  him- 
self up  ;  but  no  such  stage  is  anywhere  reached  as  is  found 
in  the  Gospels,  and  there  is  no  hint  of  any  knowledge  of 
such  a  personality  as  is  supposed  to  be  there  painted.  In 
particular,  it  is  only  the  suffering  of  the  Divine  Beings  the 
self-immolation  of  the  High  Priest^  that  is  mentioned,  and 
not  at  all  the  supposed  lovely  human  personality  of  which 
the  critics  make  so  much  account. 

30.  It  is  impossible  in  this  sketch  to  enter  more  minutely 
into  this  matter,  already  considered  from  a  neighbouring 
point  of  view  in  the  foregoing  chapters.  But  the  cardinal 
points  thus  far  made  in  this  statement  may  be  summarised 
thus : — 

(i)  If  the  Jesus  was  merely  a  man  of  flesh  and  blood,  as 
the  critics  assure  us,  then  to  have  produced  the  Christian 
movement  he  must  have  been  a  most  amazing  and  every  way 
memorable  personality. 

(2)  Any  such  personality  would  have  made,  must  have 
made,  the  deepest  impression  as  a  man  on  his  immediate 
and  intimate  following. 

(3)  Such  a  personage  would  then  have  bulked  largely  in 
the  preaching  of  the  early  Christians,  which  would  in  fact 
have  taken  its  tone  and  colour  in  great  measure  from  that 
personality,  from  things  that  he  said  and  did. 

(4)  But  the  fact  is  that  the  case  is  exactly  the  reverse  : 
the  personality,  his  deeds  and  words  of  love  and  wisdom,  are 
entirely  absent  from  the  early  preaching.  The  Jesus- 
character  cuts  no  figure  at  all  in  the  primitive  propaganda. 
This  latter  pivots  on  and  swings  about  certain  great  ideas, 
as  of  the  coming  judgment,  the  Son  of  Man,  the  self- 
immolating  High  Priest  like  Melchizedec,  the  Lamb  slain 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  the  dying  and  re-risen 
Christ,  the  installed  Son  of  God,  the  Faithful  Witness,'  and 


*  This  phrase  and  this  notion  seem  to  be  peculiar  to  the  Apocalypse,  and 
the  prevalence  of  the  word  "  witness  "  (fiaprupla)  in  the  Johannines  is  remarkable. 
It  occurs  in  John  fourteen  times,  in  i  John  six,  in  3  John  one,  in  Apocalypse 
nine,  or  thirty  times  in  all.    Elsewhere  it  occurs  in  all  the  New  Testament  only 


94  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

various  others  ;  but  the  human  personality,  the  "  meek  and 
lowly  Jesus,"  is  simply  nowhere  to  be  found  ;  it  is  absolutely 
absent  from  the  original  proclamation. 

31.  Hence  we  must  insist  that  the  hypothesis  of  this 
wondrous  human  personality  is  positively  excluded.  It 
explains  nothing  that  calls  for  explanation.  No  amount  of 
amiability  and  **  sweet  reasonableness  "  can  be  any  ground 
for  ascribing  to  a  mere  man  a  series  of  astounding  miracles, 
for  receiving  and  believing  visions  indicating  his  resurrec- 
tion, still  less  for  basing  thereon  a  highly  elaborate,  artificial 
and,  in  the  main,  transcendental  structure  of  philosophy  and 
religion.  These  actual  effects  stand  entirely  out  of  relation 
to  the  hypothetic  causes. 

32.  It  is  not  likely  that  a  finer  logical  intelligence  than 
Holsten's  will  soon  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  problem  of 
the  Gospels  of  Paul  and  Peter,  yet  the  failure  of  his  superb 
effort  is  now  apparent  and  admitted.  In  fact,  as  already 
indicated,  the  hypothesis  of  the  colossal  personality  merely 
makes  matters  worse.  In  proportion  as  this  human  form 
towers  higher  and  higher,  more  and  more  evident  becomes 
the  impossibility  that  it  could  have  failed  so  completely  to 
leave  any  impress  on  the  teaching  and  preaching  of  the  early 
propagandists.     This  point  cannot  be  stressed  too  strongly 

seven  times,  sporadically  and  without  special  significance.  In  the  Apocalypse 
Jesus  is  twice  called  "the  Witness  the  Faithful "  (i,  5  ;  iii,  14 — "the  Amen,  the 
Witness  the  Faithful,  and  [the]  true  ").  The  term  "  witness  "  (/xaprvs)  is  used 
in  thirty-three  other  New  Testament  passages,  but  without  important 
reference.  So,  too,  the  verb  witness  {fiapTvpo/nai)  is  found  five  times,  and  the 
noun  ixapTvpiov  about  twenty-one  times,  without  giving  occasion  for  remark. 
But  the  exceptional  prevalence  of  "  witness  "  in  the  Johannines,  and  especially 
the  "  witness  of  Jesus,"  peculiar  to  the  Apocalypse,  are  important  as  illustrating 
the  striking  fact  that  the  New  Testament  writings  are  strongly  characterised, 
and  often  sharply  distinguished,  by  favourite  ideas  and  catchwords  current 
most  probably  in  particular  groups  of  Christians  or  circles  of  Christian  thought. 
It  is  not  strange,  but  rather  enlightening,  that  the  Jesus  should  have  been 
variously  conceived  as  Lion,  as  Lamb,  as  Witness,  as  Vanens,  as  Demon- 
destroyer,  as  Son  of  Man,  as  Messiah,  as  Alpha  and  Omega,  as  Was-and-Is- 
and-Will-be,  as  Man  from  Heaven,  as  Second  Adam,  as  Logos,  as  Lord,  as 
Spirit,  et  al.  It  would  be  idle  to  seek  to  unify  or  even  to  reconcile  these 
divergent  conceptions.  The  important  thing  is  to  recognise  clearly  the  true 
ground  of  the  divergence,  as  lying  in  the  diverse  mental  temperaments,  in  the 
varying  conceptive  or  imaginative  processes  of  the  writers  or  of  the  schools 
they  represent ;  a  diversity  unavoidable  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  Jesus  was 
at  first  an  ideal  and  divine  personality,  but  inexplicable  on  the  hypothesis  of  a 
purely  human  Jesus.  Noteworthy  is  the  definition  the  Apocalyptist  himself 
gives  of"  the  witness  of  Jesus  "  as  "  the  spirit  of  prophecy  " — an  enigma  that 
Volkmar  strives  to  unravel,  with  more  energy  and  ingenuity  than  success. 


WITNESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS  95 

or  repeatedly^  for  it  seems  to  be  decisive.  Let  anyone  realise 
vividly  the  historical  conditions  of  the  problem  ;  let  him  read 
again  and  again  the  New  Testament  outside  of  the  Gospels, 
and  yield  himself  to  the  natural  total  impression,  and  he  will 
find  the  absence  of  the  human  personality  of  the  Jesus  to 
be  by  all  odds  the  most  conspicuous  feature  of  the  whole 
situation. 

WITNESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

33.  But  someone  is  ready  with  the  objection:  "The 
Gospels,  however,  the  Gospels — they  are  full  of  this  human 
being ;  they  present  a  vivid  picture  of  a  noble  man,  a 
supremely  beautiful  character,  unique,  incomparable,  un- 
imaginable, which  the  ignorant  disciples  could  never  have 
invented,  which  they  have  merely  inadequately  reproduced." 
Here,  then,  the  issue  is  joined  sharply.  I  deny  each  and 
every  one  of  these  confident  time-honoured  and  timeworn 
contentions.  At  nearly  every  point  the  real  state  of  the  case 
is  exactly  the  reverse.  It  is  7iot  true  that  the  earliest  Gospel 
narratives  describe  any  human  character  at  all;  on  the 
contrary,  the  individuality  in  question  is  distinctly  dwine  and 
not  human,  in  the  earliest  portrayal.  As  time  goes  on  it  is 
true  that  certain  human  elements  do  creep  in,  particularly  in 
Luke  and  John.  In  the  latter,  indeed,  there  begins  that 
process  of  sentimentalisation  which  has  been  carried  to  such 
lengths  in  this  modern,  and  particularly  this  recent,  age. 
The  received  notion  that  in  the  early  Marcan  narratives  the 
Jesus  is  distinctly  human,  and  that  the  process  of  deification 
is  fulfilled  in  John,  is  precisely  the  reverse  of  the  truth.  In 
Mark^  there  is  really  no  man  at  all,  the  Jesus  is  God,  or  at 
least  essentially  divine,  throughout.  He  wears  only  a 
transparent  garment  of  flesh.  Mark  historises  only. 
Matthew  also  historises  and  faintly  humanises,  Luke  more 
strongly  humanises,  while  John  not  only  humanises,  but 
begins  to  sentimentalise, 

'  Of  course,  in  these  pages  the  reader  will  not  look  for  any  polemic  with 
Weiss  or  Mueller  or  Wendling-  or  Nicolardot  or  Loisy,  about  the  Synoptic 
question.  Fortunately  the  large  questions  here  raised  do  not  depend  for 
their  satisfactory  general  settlement  upon  delicate  determinations  of  priority 
and  dependence  of  Synoptic  elements.  Otherwise  they  would  have  to  be 
postponed  from  the  beginning  to  the  close  of  the  century. 


96  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

34.  Thus  far  these  are  mere  assertions,  but  they  repose 
upon  careful  analysis,  which  indeed  cannot  be  reproduced 
here  in  detail.^  Only  a  few  salient  features  of  the  situation 
can  be  presented,  and  the  reader  must  be  advertised  in 
advance  that  it  is  the  general  consensus  of  indications  that 
constitutes  the  strength  of  our  position,  and  not  any  two  nor 
any  half-dozen  single  indications,  be  they  never  so  direct 
and  telling.  Since,  then,  it  is  quite  impossible  to  discuss 
these  minute  matters  exhaustively  in  this  connection,  the 
reader  will  please  take  the  following  as  samples  only  : — 

(i)  Mark  says  naught  about  any  early  history  of  the 
Jesus  ;  apparently  he  knows  of  none  ;  in  fact,  it  is  demon- 
strable that  the  accounts  both  of  Matthew  and  of  Luke  are 
pure  imaginations.  Now  the  fact  that  these  elaborate  and 
thoroughly  contradictory  stories  were  invented  proves  that 
fantasy  played  round  the  theme,  that  there  arose  a  demand 
at  least  for  ideas  concerning  it ;  but  if  there  had  been  any 
facts  in  the  case  these  must  have  been  in  some  measure 
accessible  ;  that  none  were  ascertained  indicates  that  none 
were  ascertainable,  that  such  facts  did  not  really  exist. 

Moreover,  Mark  does  not  claim  to  be  telling  an  historical 
tale  ;  he  is  concerned  avowedly  with  the  doctrine — "  Begin- 
ning of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ"  (i,  i).  Certainly  he 
gives  this  an  historical  form  ;  he  historises,  but  he  does  not 
profess  to  write  history. 

If  the  Jesus  was  such  an  impressive  human  personality, 
it  seems  strange  that  the  earliest  narrator  should  think  solely 
of  a  body  of  dogma,  and  not  at  all  of  the  character  of  that 
marvellous  human  being. 

(2)  Mark  nowhere  applies  to  the  Jesus  any  term  that 
would  indicate  any  impressive  or  even  amiable  human 
personality,  or  in  fact  any  human  personality  whatever.  On 
the  contrary,  the  distinctive  terms  are  such  as  would  naturally 
be  used  of  a  God,  in  fact  of  Jehovah,  and  not  of  a  man.  The 
few  apparent  exceptions  will  serve  to  prove  this  rule. 

(a)  Three  or  four  times  (in  Mark)  the  Jesus  is  said  to 
have  "  had  compassion  "  on  the  people  (i,  41  ;  vi,  34  ;  viii,  2  ; 

'  The  writer  completed  in  September,  1909,  a  minute  discussion  of  Mark, 
verse  by  verse  ;  since  then  the  importunacy  of  professional  duties  has 
prevented  final  revision  and  preparation  for  the  press. 


WITNESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS  97 

ix,  22),  in  Matthew  five  times,  thrice  in  Luke  ;  this  ''  com- 
passion "  is  one  of  the  two  chief  traits  of  Jesus  according  to 
Schmiedel,  and  is  perhaps  the  chief  in  the  general  concep- 
tion. Surely  compassion  is  most  human.  Yes,  but  it  is 
also  divine  ;  in  fact,  it  is  the  especially  divine  attribute  in 
the  Oriental  conception  :  "  Allah,  the  Compassionate,  the 
Merciful."  And  now  mark  well.  The  Greek  word'  is  not 
idiomatically  employed  in  this  sense  ;  it  is  a  mere  imitation 
in  Greek  of  the  Hebrew  raham  (rahamim  =  ho\vQ\s^  mercies). 
Now  this  Hebrew  term  is  continually  and  almost  exclusively 
used  (in  the  Old  Testament)  of  or  in  connection  with  Jehovah. 
With  only  a  few  exceptions,  it  is  solely  Jehovah  that  is  made 
subject  of  the  verb,  and  these  exceptions  rather  strengthen 
than  weaken  the  rule.  We  may  say,  then,  that  the  Greek 
word,  as  merely  rendering  the  Hebrew,  though  it  might  be 
used  of  a  man,  is  far  fitter  applied  to  Deity  ;  is,  indeed, 
distinctive  not  of  man,  but  of  God  ;  as  is  also  seen  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  used  only  of  the  JesuSy  with  only  three  even 
apparent  exceptions  in  all  the  New  Testament :  Matthew 
xviii,  27,  where  **  the  Lord  of  that  servant "  represents 
Jehovah  ;  Luke  x,  33,  of  the  Good  Samaritan  (symbolising  a 
divine  Being?)  ;  Luke  xv,  20,  where  the  Father  is  God  or 
the  Jesus.  Its  practically  exclusive  predication  of  the  Jesus 
clearly  indicates,  though  it  does  not  positively  prove,  that 
he  was  from  the  first  conceived  as  Jehovah,  or  at  least  as  a 
Vice-Deity. 

{b)  The  term  "rebuked"^  is  used  in  Mark  six  times  of 
the  Jesus  (also  frequently  in  the  other  Gospels).  It  is  also 
used  of  others  (thrice),  and  so  in  the  other  Gospels.  Hence 
it,  too,  appears  distinctive  of  the  Jesus.  Now,  however, 
it  merely  renders  the  Hebrew  ga^ar^  which,  again,  is  used 
distinctively,  though  not  peculiarly,  of  Jehovah  (about  eighteen 
out  of  twenty-four  times).  Here,  then,  the  indication  is  the 
same  as  in  the  foregoing  case,  though  not  so  strong. 

(c)  The  term  **  snort  at"^  is  used  four  times  of  the  Jesus 
(Mark  i,  43  ;  Matthew  ix,  30  ;  John  xi,  33,  38),  once  of  the 
disciples  (Mark  xiv,  5).  The  word  is  most  rare,  and  seems 
extraordinary  as  applied  to  any  man,  most  especially  puzzling 

*  ffTcKarfxyi^oiMn,  from  o-irXdyxya^ viscera.  ^  eiriTifjidu.  3  i/x^pi/xdofxai. 

H 


98  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

as  applied  to  the  gentle  Jesus,  particularly  as  it  is  hard  to 
find  any  good  reason  for  this  **  snorting."  However,  the 
explanation  is  not  tar  to  seek.  The  word  merely  renders 
the  Hebrew  naharah  (snorting,  Jer.  viii,  i6),  or  neshamah^ 
used  regularly  of  the  "  blast  of  the  nostrils "  of  Jehovah. 
Here,  then,  the  application  of  the  repellent  word  to  the  Jesus 
appears  as  natural  and  almost  inevitable,  only  if  the  Jesus  he 
thought  as  like  Jehovah^  so  that  the  predicates  of  the  latter 
are  transferred  to  the  former  ;  otherwise  it  remains  perplexing 
and  offensive. 

\/  (d)  But  is  it  not  said  that  the  Jesus  "  loved  " '  the  Rich 
One?  Yes,  indeed,  in  a  most  important  pericope  (Mark 
X,  2i),  the  only  one  in  which  such  a  sentiment  is  ascribed  to 
the  Jesus,  outside  of  the  sentimentalising  Fourth  Gospel. 
Let  us  look  narrowly  at  this  instructive  passage.  This  love 
for  the  Rich  One  appears  very  human,  and  yet  is  it  not 
strange  that  such  a  feeling  should  well  up  only  once  in  the 
life  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists?  The  phenomenon  is 
certainly  worth  pondering.  Now,  in  another  connection 
I  have  proved  beyond  contradiction  that  the  Rich  One 
is  and  can  be  nothing  else  than  Faithful  Israel  ;  the 
mysterious  figure  is  symbolical  purely  and  only.  Detailed 
proof  cannot  be  given  here,  but  clear  indications  may 
suffice. 

(i)  This  One""  meets  the  Jesus  just  at  the  entrance  into 
Judea  (Mark  x,  i,  17).  It  is  highly  unlikely  that  an  indi- 
vidual Jew  would  have  met  the  Jesus  in  the  manner  detailed, 
while  the  typical  Jew,  the  Jewish  people,  could  be  so 
described  with  great  beauty  and  propriety. 

(2)  The  features  of  the  One  suit  Faithful  Israel  ;  the  use 
of  the  bare  term  One  seems  noteworthy. 

(3)  Hitherto  in  Galilee  (of  the  Gentiles)  the  Jesus  seems 
to  have  met  only  multitudes  of  invalids,  particularly 
demoniacs;  '' great  multitudes  followed  him,  and  he  healed 
them  all."  No  such  persons  meet  him  in  Judea,  only  blind 
Bartimasus  forms  an  exception  confirming  the  rule.  Now 
Galilee  was  certainly  as  healthful  as  Judea.  Why,  then, 
such  countless  throngs  of  sick  folk  in  Galilee  and  none  in 

*  ijya.TT'qaev,  '  eis. 


WITNESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS  99 

Judea  ?  Only  one  answer  is  possible  :  The  maladies  of  Galilee 
were  purely  spiritual ;  they  were  paganism^  false  worships 
polytheism.  The  gods  and  idols,  those  were  the  diseases  he 
cured  and  the  demons  he  cast  out.  His  career  in  Galilee  is 
only  a  brilliant  poetic  picture  of  the  progress  of  the  Jesus- 
cult.  "  Go  tell  John  what  ye  hear  and  see  ;  blind  men  look 
up  and  lame  men  walk,  lepers  are  cleansed  and  deaf  men 
hear,  and  the  dead  are  raised  and  the  poor  are  evangelised." 
All  these  works  stand  in  line.  It  is  the  same  great  deed 
expressed  under  six  forms — the  conquests  of  the  Jesus-cult 
among  the  Poor,  the  Gentiles  and  the  Gentilised  Jews. 
Now,  in  Judea  the  true  God  was  worshipped,  true  religion 
prevailed.  Hence  such  cures  as  those  wrought  in  Galilee 
of  the  Gentiles  were  impossible.  But  spiritual  blindness 
prevailed,  alas !  even  among  the  highly-honoured  people  of 
God  ;  hence  the  cure  of  blind  Bartimaeus,  who  symbolises 
the  spiritually  blinded  Jew.  If  such  be  the  proper  interpre- 
tation of  those  facts,  then  there  is  no  other  choice  :  we  must 
regard  this  One^  who  meets  Jesus  at  the  gate  of  Judea,  as 
the  symbol  of  Jewry. 

(4)  That  the  writer  was  actually  thinking  of  Jacob  the 
chosen  lies  plain  to  see  in  the  language  used  of  the  One  in 
verse  22  :  **  But  he  with  lowering  look  at  the  word  went 
away  grieving"  ;^  as  compared  with  Isaiah  Ivii,  17:  ''And 
he  was  grieved,  and  with  lowering  look  went  on  in  his  ways.""" 
Now  the  prophet  here  speaks  of  Israel,  and  of  Israel  only, 
and  it  seems  impossible  that  the  Marcan  writer  was  not 
thinking  of  this  Isaian  passage.  Especially  to  note  is  the 
word  arxy'^vdaaq  ("  with  lowering  look  "),  corresponding  to  the 
Septuagint"  lowering  "((TTvyvoc).  This  extremely  rare  o-rvyva^w 
(now  rejected  from  Matthew  xvi,  3)  is  a  Septuagint  word 
rendering  the  Hebrew  shobab  (froward,  apostate) ;  outside 
the  Septuagint  it  seems  to  be  found  just  once,  in  a  scholium 
on  Aesch.  Pers,  470. ^  We  may  safely  say,  then,  that  the 
Marcan  writer  had  the  Septuagint,  or  some  similar  transla- 
tion, of  the  Isaian  verse  in  his  mind,  hence  he  must  have 
been  thinking  of  Israel.     In  fact,  he  seems  to  have  quoted 

*  6  5^  (rriryvao-as  iirl  tQ  \6y(fi  dTTJXdep  Xvirov/xevos. 

"  Kal  iXvirijOr],  Kal  ffrvyvbs  '  Topevdr)  iv  rats  bdoh  avTOv. 

3  Its  use  by  Eumathius  (a.d.  iioo?)  hardly  counts. 


lOO  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

thus  from   Isaiah,  to   make   his   own   symbolism  clear  and 
unmistakable.^ 

(5)  The  requirement  to  sell  all  goods  and  give  to  the 
poor  is  unreasonable,  and  unwarranted  by  precedent.  It 
acquires  sense  and  reason  only  when  taken,  in  its  proper 
historic  setting,  to  be  the  demand  of  the  Jesus-cult  that 
Israel  should  renounce  his  "many  possessions,"  his  spiritual 
privileges  and  prerogatives,  should  share  them  with  the 
Gentile  by  admitting  this  latter  on  equal  terms  into  the 
Kingdom.     No  wonder  he  hesitated. 

(6)  The  reported  conversation  between  the  Jesus  and  the 
disciples  is  to  be  understood  only  in  accord  with  the  fore- 
going :  *'  How  hardly  shall  they  that  have  the  possessions 
enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  !  And  the  disciples  were 
amazed  at  his  words."  Notice  the  language:  "They  that 
have  the  possessions."^  A  distinct  and  definite  class  appears 
to  be  meant.  And  why  the  amazement  of  the  disciples? 
There  seems  nothing  amazing  in  the  notion  that  the  rich 
should  find  it  harder  than  the  poor  to  enter  into  the  Kingdom. 
On  hearing  that  it  is  "easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the 
needle's  eye  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  Kingdom  of 
God"  they  exclaim,  "Who,  then,  can  be  saved?"  That  is, 
if  the  Jew  cannot;  otherwise  the  question  lacks  point.  Their 
attitude  seems  strange,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Jesus,  if  rich 
be  meant  literally.  The  Jesus  replies :  "  With  men  this  is 
impossible,  but  with  God  all  things  are  possible."  This 
means,  if  anything,  that  the  salvation  of  the  rich  is  really 
impossible,  save  by  a  miracle.  Applied  to  a  rich  man,  this 
looks  unreasonable  ;  applied  to  the  Jewish  people,  it  looks 
reasonable  enough.  Note,  too,  the  closing  words :  "  But 
many  last  first  and  first  last."  A  perfectly  natural  interpre- 
tation refers  this  to  the  Jew  (naturally  first,  really  last,  in 
accepting  the  new  cult,  or  the  Kingdom)  and  the  Gentile 
(naturally  last,  really  first).  What  other  worthy  interpreta- 
tion has  revealed  itself  to  the  eyes  of  the  commentator? 

(7)  Lastly,  that  such  is  really  the  thought  of  the 
Evangelist  is   made  clear  by  the  exactly  parallel  thought 

*  Compare  the  learned  remarks  of  Abbott,  Corrections  of  Mark  [439M442]' 


JEW  AND  GENTILE     ,     ..,.,..,,.  ^o| 

in  Romans  ix-xi.  What  a  prodigious  puzzle  this  inversion 
of  relations  (of  Jew  and  Gentile)  to  the  Kingdom  presented  to 
the  early  Christian  consciousness  is  distinctly  visible  in  this 
most  elaborate  argument  on  the  paradox  of  Jewish  rejection 
and  Gentile  acceptance  of  the  Gospel.  Now  note  the  con- 
clusion. The  apostle  insists,  in  the  teeth  of  all  the  facts  in 
the  case,  that  the  rejection  cannot  be  real  and  permanent,  and 
that  the  honour  of  the  Almighty  is  pledged  to  the  salvation — 
nay,  the  glorification — of  Jacob,  that  the  incoming  of  the 
Gentile  is  only  the  prologue  to  the  stately  drama.  *'  So  then 
all  Israel  shall  be  saved,"  he  concludes  (xi,  26) ;  and,  intoxi- 
cated with  the  splendid  vision  of  all  the  Jews  redeemed,  of  the 
glorified  People  of  God^  he  bursts  out  into  the  magnificent 
apostrophe  :  "  O  depth  of  riches  and  wisdom  and  knowledge 
of  God  !  how  unsearchable  his  judgments  and  inexplorable 
his  ways  ! "  Such  is  precisely  the  view  of  the  evangelist,  but 
shadowed  forth  by  symbolism,  not  recommended  by  passionate 
rhetoric. 

35.  Let  the  reader  notice  the  great  number  of  marks  by 
which  we  identify  this  Rich  One  and  determine  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  whole  passage — no  less  than  seven,  and  some  of 
these  not  single,  but  multiple.  It  is  most  unlikely  that  any 
interpretation  fitting  so  accurately  at  every  point  can  be 
incorrect.  If  you  put  together  a  very  complex  machine,  as 
a  watch,  so  that  it  functions  perfectly,  you  may  be  practically 
sure  that  you  have  put  it  together  right,  even  though  admitting 
the  abstract  possibility  that  the  maker  intended  it  to  be  set 
together  otherwise.  But  probability  is  the  guide  of  life.  We 
may  know,  indeed,  a  priori  that  this  paradoxical  relation  of 
Jew  and  Gentile  must  have  vexed  the  wits  of  the  first 
Christians,  even  as  it  is  now  inexplicable  to  such  as  disregard 
the  essential  Hellenism  of  Christianity  ;  and  it  would  have 
been  strange  had  it  not  received  treatment  in  the  Gospels  as 
well  as  in  the  Epistles. 

JEW  AND  GENTILE 

36.  In  fact,  it  has  received  more  than  one  treatment. 
The  parable  of  Lazarus  and  Dives  is  an  interesting  pre- 
sentation of  the  matter.  Dives  is  the  rich  Jew,  Lazarus  the 
miserable  Gentile,   **poor  and   needy,"  ''sick  and  sore" — 


jo^     .      T]E3JIM0NY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

obviously  and  certainly,  as  is  seen  in  more  than  one  circum- 
stance. Thus  Lazarus  lay  at  the  gate,  waiting  for  the  falling 
(crumbs)  from  the  rich  man's  table.  Precisely  so,  the  Syro- 
phenician  woman  (Mark  vii,  28)  declares  wisely  that  the  dogs 
eat  of  the  children's  crumbs.  Now  no  one  doubts  that  by  the 
children  are  here  meant  the  Jews,  and  by  the  dogs  the 
Gentiles  ;  hence  the  presumption  that  the  same  is  meant  in 
the  other  parable.  Again,  Lazarus  is  carried  to  Abraham's 
bosom,  and  Dives  cast  into  hell.  Exactly  so  in  Matthew  viii, 
II,  12  it  is  declared  that  many  from  east  and  west  (Gentiles) 
shall  sit  down  with  Abraham  in  the  Kingdom,  while  the 
children  of  the  Kingdom  (Jews)  shall  be  cast  into  outer 
darkness.  Again,  Dives  asks  that  Lazarus  be  sent  "to  my 
father's  house"  to  warn  his  "five  brethren."  What  does 
this  mean?  "  My  father's  house" — i.e.y  Jehovah's  house — 
is  an  Old  Testament  name  for  Palestine.  Thus  in  Hosea 
viii,  i:  "As  an  eagle  (Assyria)  swoops  upon  Jahveh's 
house"  (Canaan);  Hosea  ix,  3,  4,  5,  6  :  "Thou  shalt  not 
dwell  in  Jahveh's  land,  but  Ephraim  shall  return  to  Egypt, 

and  they  shall  eat  unclean  (food)  in  Asshur. for  their  bread, 

for  their  hunger,  shall  not  come  into  Jahveh's  house Egypt 

shall  gather  them  up,  Memphis  shall  bury  them  ";  ix,  15  : 
"  Out  of  my  house  Avill  I  drive  them  "  (the  people  out  of  the 
land  of  Israel).  But  the  "five  brethren"?  Plainly  the  five 
nations  of  Samaria  (2  Kings  xvii,  24-41),  the  five  husbands  of 
the  woman  of  Samaria  (John  iv,  18),  who  have  "  Moses  and 
the  prophets."  Observe,  further,  the  utter  disconnection  of 
this  parable  (Luke  xvi,  19-31)  with  its  context ;  omit  it,  and 
the  flow  of  thought  is  quite  as  smooth  as  before.  //  is  not 
even  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Jesus,  Obviously  it  is  a 
parable  quite  independent,  inserted  here,  but  having  its  own 
raison  d^etre. 

37.  The  fourth  Evangelist  has  seized  upon  Luke's  state- 
ment that  they  would  not  believe  even  though  one  (Lazarus) 
should  arise  from  the  dead,  and  developed  it  into  an  elaborate 
story  in  which  a  certain  Lazarus  does  actually  arise  from  the 
dead — with  the  predicted  result  :  they  do  not  believe,  are 
merely  hardened  in  their  unbelief  (xi,  46,  53).  That  such  is 
the  interpretation  of  this  minute  narrative  seems  certain,  for 
Lazarus  is  known  to  the  Synoptic  story  only  in  Luke  xvi, 


JEW  AND  GENTILE  103 

20,  23,  24,  25.  Now,  had  Mary  and  Martha  had  such  a  brother, 
and  had  such  a  stupendous  miracle  taken  place  under  such 
conditions,  it  is  altogether  inconceivable  that  the  Synoptists 
should  have  failed  to  notice  it,  especially  as  it  was  (according 
to  John)  precisely  this  prodigy  that  was  the  prime  cause  of 
the  arrest  and  execution  of  the  Jesus  (xi,  53). 

38.  We  can  now  see  clearly  who  were  the  ten  lepers 
healed  in  Luke  xvii,  11-19.  Why  ten?  Why  in  passing 
through  Samaria?  Why  did  they  stand  "afar  off"?  All 
these  indices  point  to  the  scattered  Ten  Tribes  of  Israel, 
leprous  from  contact  with  heathen  idolatry.  It  seems,  indeed, 
astonishing  that  anyone  can  fail  to  perceive  instantly  that 
this  story  cannot  be  historic,  cannot  be  a  legend,  that  it  must 
be  a  symbolism  freighted  with  meaning.  Does  anyone  ask 
who  was  the  typical  solitary  Samaritan  that  gave  thanks?  Is 
not  his  name  found  in  Acts  viii,  13?  Is  it  not  Simon  Magus  ?^ 
This,  however,  parenthetically  and  without  insistence. 

39.  Returning  to  the  notion  of  the  rich-feasting  Jew  and 
the  poor  crumb-craving  Gentile,  we  find  it  beautifully  set 
forth  in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  the  emphasis  falling 
on  the  joy  in  heaven  at  the  return  of  humanity  to  the  true 
God  after  its  long  carousal  with  the  false  religions  of 
heathendom.  The  elder  son  who  looks  on  so  grudgingly, 
almost  as  displeased  as  was  the  fatted  calf  itself,  though  not 
with  such  good  reasons,  typifies  most  vividly  the  jealous  Jew, 
so  unwilling  to  share  his  possessions  with  his  younger 
Gentile  brother — the  Jew  who  had  served  God  so  many  years, 
nor  ever  transgressed  a  commandment,  and  who  had,  indeed, 
suffered  much,  and  had  made  merry  but  rarely  in  so  many 
centuries.  His  reluctance  was  not  unnatural.  Note,  how- 
ever, that,  although  he  now  refuses  to  enter  into  the 
Kingdom,  yet  his  right  of  primogeniture  is  not  really 
forfeited.     Says  the  Father :  "  Child,  thou  art  always  with 

^  Whose  sublime  transfiguration  is  Simon  the  converted,  the  penitent, 
the  Apostle,  the  so-called  Peter.  Does  some  one  object  that  this  leper  could 
not  at  one  and  the  same  time  symbolise  a  lost  tribe  and  an  individual,  Simon 
Mag-US?  But  nothing-  was  more  familiar  to  the  oriental  mind  than  this  repre- 
sentation of  a  people  by  a  person — the  notions  of  the  general  and  the  particular 
were  continually  flowing  into  each  other.  However,  it  seems  very  likely  that 
vv.  15-19  are  by  a  later  hand,  an  expansion  of  the  original  simpler  idea  in 
view  of  the  prominence  of  Simon  Magus  in  the  early  days  of  the  Church. 
Simonians,  as  we  learn  from  Origen  (C.  Cels.y  v,  63),  was  one  of  the  names 
applied  to  Christians. 


I04  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

me,  and  all  that  is  mine  is  thine."     Again  we  hear  the  voice 
of  the  Apostle  :  "So,  then,  all  Israel  shall  be  saved." 

40.  A  still  subtler  and  more  elaborate,  though  far  less 
sympathetic,  picture  of  the  Jew  is  found  in  that  notorious 
character  Judas  Iskariot,  the  Jew  the  Surrenderee  That  such 
is  the  meaning  of  Iskariot  seems  to  be  proved,  with  at  least  as 
high  probability  as  commonly  attaches  to  such  matters,  in 
another  chapter  (see  infra).  The  term  v'sikkarti  ("  and  I  will 
deliver  up  ")  is  actually  found  in  Isaiah  xix,  4,  and  the  form 
Skariotes  seems  to  be  only  a  very  slight  disguise  formed 
after  the  analogy  of  such  a  Greek  word  as  stratiotes  (soldier) 
passing  over  into  Syriac  in  the  form  "estratiota."  The  suffix 
"  he  that  delivered  up  (or  surrendered') "  seems  to  be  merely 
a  translation  of  (I)Skariot,  and  does  not  mean  who  betrayed. 
The  Jew  (Judas)  is  called  the  Surrenderer  because  he  sur- 
rendered the  Jesus-cult  (his  natural  prerogative,  monotheism, 
the  true  worship)  up  to  the  Gentiles.  Of  course,  in  this 
connection,  I  make  no  attempt  to  prove  these  statements. 
This  idea  has,  to  be  sure,  undergone  much  elaboration  and 
some  deformation,  but  it  is  still  distinctly  recognisable  in  the 
Gospel  story.  The  interpretation  of  (I)Skariot  as  "  man  ot 
Qerioth "  is  impossible,  as  Wellhausen  {e.g,)  expressly 
admits. 

41.  But  by  far  the  most  pleasing  picture  of  the  Gentile 
and  the  Jew  in  their  relations  to  the  new  Jesus-cult  is  given 
by  Luke  (x,  38-42).  In  the  two  sisters  Mary  and  Martha 
(Lady),  the  former  sitting  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  (gladly  adopting 
the  Jesus-cult),  the  latter  cumbered  with  much  serving  (Jewish 
rites  and  ceremonies),  and  demanding  similar  service  from 
her  sister,  it  seems  impossible  not  to  recognise  the  Gentile 
and  the  Jewish  world.  Consider  that  it  was  the  habit,  many 
centuries  old,  to  speak  of  a  people  as  a  woman  (daughter  of 
Zion,  daughter  of  my  people),  and  then  say  how  the  early 
Christian  mind,  brooding  continually  over  the  knotty  problem 
of  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile  in  the  Kingdom,  could  have 
narrated  such  an  incident  without  thinking  of  the  patent 
allegory. 

42.  That  the  great  dramatist  John  was  conscious  of  the 

'  6  TapaSoi/y. 


JEW  AND  GENTILE  105 

true  import  seems  clear  from  his  famous  eleventh  chapter : 
''There  was  a  certain  invalid,  Lazarus  of  Bethany,^  of  the 
village  of  Mary  and  Martha  her  sister.  It  was  Mary  that 
anointed  the  Lord  with  myrrh  and  wiped  his  feet  with  her 
hair,  whose  brother  Lazarus  was  sick."  As  Lazarus  can  be 
nothing  but  the  Gentile  world,  so,  too,  his  sister  Mary. 
There  is  no  inconsistency,  only  harmonious  variety  in  the 
symbolism.  This  brother  is  sick  even  to  death — how  true  of 
heathendom  !  All  three  (both  Jew  and  Gentile)  are  beloved 
of  the  Jesus.  Lazarus  is  designated  as  **  Whom  thou  lovest " 
— plainly  pagan  humanity.  Could  such  an  individual  favourite 
of  Jesus  (the  man)  have  absolutely  escaped  through  the  sieve 
of  Synoptic  tradition  ?  Impossible !  Note,  further,  the  various 
delicate  touches  of  the  artist.  The  Jesus  knows  that  his  "  dear 
Lazarus  "  is  sick,  yet  delays  two  days  till  death  intervenes. 
Why  ?  Whence  this  strange  motif?  Is  it  not  the  long 
delay  of  history,  the  thousand-year  patience  of  Jehovah  with 
the  malady  of  pagandom,  that  the  symbolist  sets  forth  ? 
Again,  it  is  Martha,  not  Mary  (the  Jew,  not  the  Gentile),  that 
goes  to  meet  the  coming  Jesus  (in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets). 
She  is  clearly  designated  as  the  people  of  God  by  the  words 
put  into  her  mouth  :  ''  I  know  that  whatsoever  thou  askest  of 
God,  God  will  give  it  thee  ";  "  I  know  that  he  will  rise  up  in 
the  resurrection  at  the  last  day  ";  ''  yea,  Lord,  I  have  believed 
that  thou  art  the  Christ  (Messiah),  the  Son  of  God,  that 
Cometh  into  the  world."  Notice,  too,  how  exquisitely  the 
faith  of  the  Jew  is  supplemented  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Jesus : 
"I  am  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life,"  &c. — words  that  have 
proper  meaning  only  when  understood,  not  of  a  person,  but 
of  an  Idea,  a  soul-quickening  Teaching.    Notice,  still  further, 

*  This  Bethany  is  in  the  Syriac  and  therefore  in  the  Aramaic  Beth  "  ania^^ 
and  this  latter  word  has  been  variously  interpreted  incorrectly.  The  corre- 
sponding Hebrew  stem  recurs  continually  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  primary 
sense  of  vex^  afflict^  and  the  derived  sense  oi  poor  ("ani").  Now  in  Luke 
X,  40,  it  is  said  that  Martha  was  vexing  herself^  and  the  Syriac  word  is 
precisely  this  same  "  ania,"  as  it  is  also  in  the  Sinaitic  Syriac  at  John  xii,  2 
(as  noted  by  Nestle,  Phil.  Sac,  p.  20,  and  as  it  now  stands  in  Burkitt's 
monumental  Evangelion  da-Mepharreshe,  p.  492),  where  the  received  text  in 
all  the  languages  now  presents  served.  Bethany,  then,  means  house  of  her 
that  vexes  herself,  and  we  see  why  John  has  made  it  the  home  of  the  self- 
vexing  Martha.  Whether  there  ever  was  such  a  village  need  not  here  be 
discussed.  The  obvious  suggestion  is  that  the  name  designates  Judea  or  the 
Jewish  nationality,  the  home  of  her  that  received  the  Jesus  when  he  came 
thither  from  the  Dispersion, 


io6  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

the  very  different  meeting  and  conversation  with  Mary,  who 
falls  at  the  feet  of  Jesus — /.^.,  worships  him — as  Martha  did 
not.  Note,  too,  that  Jesus  calls  Mary  (the  "calling  of  the 
Gentiles  "),  that  he  never  enters  into  the  house  of  Martha, 
who  leaves  Jesus  where  she  met  him^  and  objects  to  opening  the 
sepulchre, 

43.  From  childhood  the  writer  could  never  read  this 
chapter  without  a  feeling  of  unrest,  of  bewilderment,  as  to 
the  parts  played  by  the  two  sisters,  which  seemed  almost  to 
invert  the  relations  natural  in  the  case  ;  nor  was  this  wholly 
involuntary  mental  reaction  ever  relieved  till  the  symbolic 
significance  of  the  characters  was  revealed. 

43^.  John  is  careful  to  identify  Mary,  the  sister  of 
Lazarus,  as  "  the  one  who  anointed  the  Lord  with  ointment 
and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair."  In  xii,  2  he  emphasises 
that  "  Martha  served "  (rather,  "  was  vexing  herself  with 
service — war  bemiiht  mit  der  Bedienmig — Merx).  It  is 
Mary  that  overwhelms  Jesus  with  worship,  against  which 
Judas  {i.e.^  Jewry)  protests.  Now,  on  its  face  this  scene  is 
compounded  out  of  the  Synoptic  scenes  given  in  Mark  xiv,  2-9 ; 
Matthew  xxvi,  6-13  ;  Luke  vii,  36-50,  x,  38-42.  Perhaps  no 
one  will  deny  this.  In  Mark  and  Matthew  the  scene  is  laid 
in  Bethany,  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper ;  in  Luke  it  is 
in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Pharisee  ;  but  John  takes  one 
important  item  from  the  scene  in  the  home  of  Martha  in 
Bethany.  In  Mark  and  Matthew  it  is  merely  a  woman  ;  in 
Luke  she  is  a  fallen  woman — a  sinner.  The  writers  are 
perfectly  conscious  that  they  are  dealing  with  symbols,  and 
not  with  history,  for  they  modify  the  statements  freely,  to 
suit  the  purposes  of  their  thought.  Particularly  in  Luke  it 
seems  clear  as  day  that  the  writer  means  to  set  forth  the  sharp 
contrast  between  the  receptions  accorded  Jesus  (the  Jesus-cult) 
by  the  Jews  and  by  the  Gentiles.  The  Pharisee  receives  him 
with  no  mark  of  honour  or  worship  ;  the  sinful  woman  over- 
whelms him  with  both,  and  with  affection  besides.  Loisy 
thinks  nothing  easier  (rien  de  plus  facile)  than  to  explain 
the  incident  in  Capernaum  or  a  neighbouring  village — the 
courtesan  could  readily  enter,  thanks  to  the  tumult  and 
freedom  that  accompany  great  feasts  in  the  East !  {Ev.  Syn,^ 
I,  684).     Is  it  Loisy  or  Renan  that  is  writing?    About  as 


JEW  AND  GENTILE  107 

easy  to  explain  such  an  intrusion  at  a  dining  in  honour  of  a 
bishop  in  Boston.  Loisy  admits  a  "certain  indifference*'  in 
the  Evangelists  as  to  "mere  matter  of  fact,"  as  well  as  the 
presence  of  what  "  one  might  almost  call  a  trace  of  religious 
worship."  Nor  would  he  seem  to  hold  firmly  to  the  his- 
toricity of  the  incident  in  Bethany.  Other  acute  biographers 
of  Jesus  have  remarked  the  conspicuity  of  women,  even  of 
erring  women,  in  the  Gospel  narrative,  and  have  shrewdly 
surmised  that  the  Christ  must  have  been  an  uncommonly 
handsome  and  winsome  Rabbi — in  fact,  "  a  dear,  charming 
man,"  such  as  the  Jewish  race  not  seldom  perfects  in  beauty 
— and  must  have  had  a  peculiar  attraction  for  the  eternal 
feminine.  Nor  is  it,  indeed,  easy  to  do  justice  to  the  Gospel 
narratives  as  history  without  some  such  supposition,  for  their 
statements  certainly  indicate  as  much,  nor  are  these  to  be 
understood  as  mere  gratuitous  inventions.  On  the  other 
hand,  how  such  a  marked  trait  of  character  is  to  be  set  in  any 
even  half-way  plausible  or  acceptable  Jesushild^  without  fatal 
offence  to  the  religious  consciousness,  has  not  yet  been 
demonstrated.  Thus  between  Krethi  and  Plethi  the  liberal 
theory  of  the  purely  human  Jesus  goes  to  pieces  utterly. 

43^.  Now,  however,  the  whole  explanation  is  obvious 
and  transparent.  In  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  in  the 
New,  an  erring  woman  is  the  standing  symbol  for  an 
idolatrous  or  apostate  people.  One  need  only  think  of  the 
prophet  Hosea,  of  Jeremiah  iii,  of  Ezekiel  xxiii  (of  Aholah 
and  Aholibah),  of  Matthew's  and  Mark's  "  adulterous  genera- 
tion," of  the  Jezebel  of  Revelation.  As  soon  as  the  sug- 
gestion is  made  it  becomes  clear  as  light  that  the  sinful 
woman  who  anoints  the  Jesus  and  bathes  his  feet  with  her 
tears,  and  covers  him  with  caresses  of  reverence  and  affection,  j 
can  be  none  other  than  the  converted  heathen  worlds  so  long 
given  up  to  the  shameless  service  of  polytheism.  When  a 
riddle  or  rebus  is  proposed,  one  may  cudgel  one's  wits  in 
vain  to  unravel  it.  Once,  however,  the  solution  is  stated, 
there  is  no  longer  any  doubt  whatever  ;  we  see  it  clearly 
and  distinctly  enough  to  satisfy  the  most  rigorous  Cartesian.' 

*  In  his  wondrously  learned  Bihlische  Lieheslieder  Professor  Haupt  has 
made  this  observation,  and  has  illustrated  it  most  felicitously  by  this 
example ;  2x2  =  4  {Nichts  neues  vpr  Paris). 


\ 


io8  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Critics  need  no  longer  wonder   how  Jesus    exerted  such   a 
marvellous  magnetism  over  village  Cyprians. 

In  one  case  the  symbolist,  playing  on  his  favourite  theme, 
seems  to  have  fairly  outdone  himself.  Of  course,  the  refer- 
ence is  to  the  famous  pericope  now  printed  in  brackets 
(John  vii,  53-viii,  12).  The  symbolism  is  perfectly  obvious, 
but  the  colouring  is  almost  too  high  ;  hence  it  very  early 
gave  offence,  and  never  quite  established  itself  anywhere, 
neither  in  John  nor  in  Luke,  codically.  Very  likely  it  was 
an  elaboration  of  the  incident  mentioned  in  Papias,  also  in 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  of  the  woman  accused 
of  many  sins  and  brought  before  Jesus  (Eus.  H.E.^  Ill,  39). 
Reuss  thinks  ''the  authenticity  of  the  fact  appears  sufficiently 
established  "  !  Godet  thinks  it  an  **  inimitable  feature  of  the 
life  of  Jesus"!  And  yet,  long  before  them,  Hengstenberg 
(as  I  have  just  observed)  had  clearly  perceived  that  the  story 
was  the  invention  of  a  believer  hostile  to  Judaism,  who  would 
depict  the  pardoning  grace  of  God  towards  the  Gentile  world. 
Such  critics  refuse  to  see  the  most  obvious  spiritual  figure, 
and  obstinately  insist  upon  the  most  deadening  letter  of 
historic  fact.  One  cannot  blame  them.  They  are  guided  by 
a  faithful  logical  instinct.  They  feel  that  they  must  resist 
the  beginnings — that  even  a  small  concession  to  the  symbolic 
would  entail  ultimately  the  surrender  of  their  whole  historic 
theory. 

SYMBOLIC  INTERPRETATION  NECESSARY 

44.  It  seemed  proper  to  dwell  at  length  on  this  idea  of 
the  rich  Jew  and  the  poor  Gentile,  to  show  how  full  the 
Gospels  are  not  only  of  this  thought,  but  of  thought  in 
general  ;  how  symbolism  of  the  most  pregnant  kind  con- 
stitutes their  very  warp  and  woof.  Far  more  than  this, 
however,  there  is  a  logical  virtue  in  such  elaboration.  A 
symbolic  interpretation,  however  satisfactory  in  itself,  might 
still  be  quite  unconvincing  if  it  stood  alone.  When,  how- 
ever, so  many  fairly  obtrude  themselves  at  so  many  points 
and  call  so  urgently  for  acceptance,  the  demands  support 
each  other.  We  cannot  reject  all.  If  the  improbability  of 
any  one  be  as  much  as  two-thirds,  the  simultaneous  improba- 
bility of  half-a-dozen  (independent)  such  would  be  only  ,SVi 


SYMBOLIC  INTERPRETATION  NECESSARY         109 

or  less  than  ^  ;  there  would  hardly  be  one  chance  in  twelve 
that  all  six  would  be  erroneous.  Now,  however,  the  number 
of  such  obvious  symbolisms  is  not  six,  but  rather  sixty  ;  yea, 
more  (as  analysis  of  the  Gospel  clearly  shows).  We  may, 
then,  be  practically  sure  that  symbolic  interpretation  is 
imperiously  required  in  many  cases,  here  and  there,  every- 
where in  the  Gospels.  But  if  such  interpretation  be  required 
at  any  considerable  number  of  independent  points,  then  it 
becomes  at  once  antecedently  probable  that  it  should  be 
employed  wherever  easily  possible.  For,  mark  you,  we  have 
become  morally  sure  of  frequent  symbolic  interpretation  ; 
we  are  not  yet,  and  apparently  never  can  be  at  any  point, 
morally  sure  of  a  matter-of-fact  historical  interpretation. 

45.  The  liberal  critic  is  challenged  to  point  out  a  single 
passage  dealing  with  the  Jesus  where  such  a  simple  historical 
interpretation  is  certainly,  or  with  very  high  probability, 
required.  Note  carefully,  then  :  in  many  cases  the  historic 
interpretation  is  excluded  with  practical  certainty  ;  in  many 
cases  the  symbolic  interpretation  is  imperiously  demanded  ; 
in  no  case  (under  consideration)  is  the  historic  interpretation 
certainly  correct  or  imperiously  demanded  ;  in  no  case  is  the 
symbolic  interpretation  positively  or  with  compelling  pro- 
bability excluded. 

46.  I  say  "in  no  case,"  not  implying  that  we  can 
actually  make  out  the  symbolic  sense  in  every  case.  Certainly 
not.  It  may  very  well  be  that  such  a  meaning  may  often 
elude  us,  for  our  comprehension  of  the  mind  of  the 
Evangelists  is  only  very  imperfect;  our  knowledge  of  the 
facts  in  the  case,  of  all  the  elements  that  entered  into  their 
thinking,  of  the  views,  dogmas  and  theories  they  wished  to 
express,  is  notoriously  incomplete.  When,  then,  we  fail  to 
find  any  satisfactory  symbolism,  it  may  very  well  be  due  to 
our  ignorance  of  the  subject,  an  ignorance  to  be  gradually 
enlightened  by  continued  study. 

47.  Since,  then,  we  have  one  certain  and  one  uncertain 
principle  of  interpretation,  it  follows  that  we  must  employ 
the  certain  one  as  long  as  and  wherever  possible ;  nor  dare 
we  invoke  the  uncertain  except  in  case  of  necessity,  except 
where  the  certain  proves  positively  to  fail,  to  be  impossible 
of  application.     Such  is  the  Razor  of  Occam,  the  principle 


no  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

of  Parsimony  :  Entia  non  sunt  multiplicanda  prceter  neces- 
sitatem, 

48.  This  logical  situation,  this  location  of  the  burden  of 
proof,  must  be  carefully  heeded.  It  is  the  object  of  the  New 
Testament  analysis  upon  which  the  present  writer  has  been 
long  engaged  to  bring  out  in  clear  and  bold  relief  this  large 
element  not  of  mythical,  not  of  legendary,  but  of  symbolic 
matter  that  is  certainly  present,  in  the  Gospels  especially 
and  in  Acts.  He  has  never  hoped  to  be  able  to  present  a 
perfectly  satisfactory  symbolic  interpretation  of  the  total 
content  of  the  quasi-historical  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 
Such  a  result  lies  perhaps  beyond  human  power,  at  least 
under  present  circumstances  of  grossly  defective  human 
knowledge.  But  it  is  certain  that  a  large,  a  very  large, 
percentage  of  that  content  not  only  may,  but  even  must,  be 
interpreted  thus  symbolically,  as  he  thinks  may  be  proved  to 
the  satisfaction  of  every  competent  and  open-minded  scholar 
— no  other  is  addressed  at  present. 

49.  Moreover,  there  is  no  part  of  that  content  (touching 
the  Jesus)  that  anyone  has  yet  made  any  serious  pretence  of 
proving  to  be  certainly  historical,  if  we  except  the  Nine 
Pillars  of  Schmiedel;  and  even  these  the  reader  will  elsewhere 
find  lying  prostrate  and  crumbling.  We  are  then  logically, 
and  even  morally,  bound  to  exploit  the  symbolic  method  to 
the  utmost,  as  far  as  possible,  and  to  reject  it — not  when  we 
have  actually  failed  to  succeed  with  it — but  only  when  it 
becomes  clear  that  in  the  nature  of  the  case  no  one  can  ever 
succeed  with  it ;  in  other  words,  that  the  historic  explanation 
is  positively  demanded.  There  is  nothing  strange  in  the 
form  of  argumentation  here  adopted,  for  it  is  merely  the 
approved  scientific  procedure  universally  recognised  and 
employed  as  the  only  proper  method  of  interpreting  natural 
phenomena.  Now  the  existence  of  the  New  Testament  and 
of  Christianity  is  also  such  a  natural  phenomenon  (since 
history  is  a  nature-process  and  psychology  is  the  fundamental 
science) ;  in  fact,  it  is  the  sublimest,  most  important,  and 
most  fascinating  of  all  phenomena. 

EXAMPLES  OF  SYMBOLISM 

50.  That  there  is  no  cause  to  lose  heart,  even   though 


EXAMPLES  OF  SYMBOLISM  in 

some  features  of  the  Gospel  narrative  should  long  resist 
analysis,  is  clearly  illustrated  by  the  case  of  the  "young 
man  clothed  in  linen  "  (Mark  xiv,  51,  52).  For  nearly  1,800 
years  this  youth  has  been  the  despair  of  exegesis.  Well- 
hausen  thinks  he  was  merely  some  unknown  fellow  in  the 
neighbourhood  who  heard  the  racket  of  the  arrest,  jumped 
out  of  bed,  with  only  a  nightrobe  around  him,  and  rushed 
to  the  scene  as  young  America  hastens  to  a  dog-fight.  How 
such  a  widely  learned  and  keen-sighted  scholar  can  for  an 
instant  entertain  such  a  banal  view  of  an  item  in  this 
succinct,  compressed,  thought-laden  Gospel  seems  incom- 
prehensible. Zahn  (following  Olshausen  ?)  has  the  notable 
merit  of  having  perceived  clearly  that  this  youth  was  not  a 
mere  nobody,  that  the  mention  of  him  must  be  charged  with 
some  kind  of  deep  significance.  Accordingly  Zahn  discovers 
in  him  no  other  than  Mark  himself!  The  two  verses,  he 
thinks,  are  in  fact  Mark's  sign-manual,  to  identify  him  as 
author,  hid  like  a  painter's  in  a  modest,  unpretentious  way  in 
a  dark  corner  of  his  great  historical  picture  !  It  is  impossible 
not  to  admire  Zahn's  ingenuity  and  the  vigour  of  his  imagina- 
tion. But  his  suggestion  can  hardly  be  taken  seriously. 
Inasmuch  as  there  is  no  hint  of  authorship  anywhere  in  the 
Gospel,  that  seems  a  queer  kind  of  signature  and  identifica- 
tion which  consists  of  a  wholly  unintelligible  mark  without 
even  the  trace  of  a  fecit,  Wohlenberg  refines  on  Zahn,  and 
fancies  that  Mark  wished  "  to  conceal  and  at  the  same  time 
to  reveal  himself  "as  author  ;  and  he  assumes  further  that  the 
soldiers  had  already  explored  Mark's  house  in  search  for 
Jesus,  where  Jesus,  as  Wohlenberg  thinks,  had  just  eaten 
the  Passover ! 

51.  These  verses  appear  at  first  sight  to  be  quite  inexplic- 
able, and  yet  they  yield  their  meaning  readily  enough.^     We 

^  Curious  the  bewilderment  of  Strauss  {Das  Lehen  Jesu  kritisch  bearbeitetj 
§  127).  Bacon  "paraphrases"  thus  :  "  But  a  certain  man  was  there  who  had 
followed  him  thither  from  his  bed,  having  the  sheet  wrapped  about  him."  It 
would  seem  that  a  sense  of  humour  should  have  saved  any  man  from 
paraphrasing  a-vvrjKoXovdei.  air^  in  such  a  grotesque  fashion.  The  Greek 
verb  is  very  emphatic ;  besides,  it  is  imperfect,  and  is  properly  rendered  by 
"was  habitually  accompanying."  In  Aristotle  it  is  used  to  designate 
necessary  accompaniment,  logical  involvement.  The  term  is  peculiarly  unfit  to 
denote  the  accidental  or  casual  presence  imagined  by  Wellhausen.  Volkmar, 
followed  by  Keim,  Holtzmann,  Loisy,  Reinach,  and  others,  recalls  Amos, 
ii,  16:  "And  the  stout-hearted  among  the  mighty  shall  flee  naked   in  that 


112  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

note  that  the  term  "young  man"'  is  not  frequent  in  Mark; 
it  occurs  only  here  and  in  xvi,  5.  In  both  cases  it  is  a 
"youth  wrapt  all  round  about";''  in  this  case  in  fine  and 
costly  linen  cloth, ^  especially  used  for  cerements  ;  in  xvi,  5, 
in  a  white  robe.'^  Even  Leibnitz  would  have  admitted  the 
two  figures  to  be  almost  tndiscernibles.  The  garment  in 
both  cases  is  white,  and  is  the  only  garment. s  In  the  first 
case  the  young  man  is  "  following  along  with,"  in  the  second 
he  is  "sitting  on  the  right."  These  two  passages,  xiv,  51,  52, 
and  xvi,  5,  are  not  far  apart ;  the  phraseology  is  strikingly 
similar — the  youths  seem  strangely  alike.  Are  they  related? 
52.  Let  us  turn  to  the  Old  Testament  and  see  if  we  can 
find  any  prototype.  At  once  we  light  on  Ezek.  ix,  2,  where 
we  find  "one  man  among  them  clothed  with  linen,  with  a 
writer's  inkhorn  by  his  side  ";  the  same  "  man  clothed  with 
linen  "  (^tsh  labush  baddtm)^  with  no  significant  change  in 
phraseology,  occurs  also  in  ix,  3,  11  ;  x,  2,  6,  7.  In  Daniel 
x,  5 ;  xii,  6,  7,  we  again  meet  with  the  same  phrase. 
Nowhere  else  is  the  phrase  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  In 
all  these  nine  cases  the  "  man  clothed  in  linen  "  is  a  technical 
phrase  denoting  a  celestial  being,  an  angel  or  divinity. 
Evidently  in  Ezek.  ix,  2  he  is  a  Secretary  (or  Recording 
Angel),  and  Zimmern  {K,A,T,  404)  does  not  hesitate  to 
identify  him  as  "manifestly  the  Babylonian  Planet-  and 
Secretary-God  Nabu,"  akin  to  the  Greek  Hermes,  whence 
may  be  explained  very  naturally  the  term  "  young  man  " 
used  by  Mark.  It  seems,  then,  that  we  are  dealing  with  a 
technical  expression  for  a  celestial  personage.^  In  Mark 
xvi,  5,  the  "youth  clothed  in  white  robe,  sitting  on  the 
right"  of  the  open  sepulchre  is  unquestionably  such  a  being; 
in  ten  cases  out  of  eleven  we  know  certainly  the  meaning  ; 
what,  then,  is  the  meaning  in  the  eleventh  case  ?     We  need 

day";  in  the  Ixx.:  "the  naked  shall  be  pursued  in  that  day."  But  this  is 
Hamlet  with  Hamlet  left  out;  there  is  no  "youth  wrapt  all  round  about." 
Besides,  there  is  no  point,  no  propriety,  in  the  allusion,  which  would  have  been 
possible  only  for  a  writer  dead  set  on  fulfilling  the  most  out-of-the-way  Old 
Testament  passages  ;  such  a  writer  Mark  was  not.  Volkmar's  suggestion 
does  not  explain  that  which  most  needs  explaining,  though  the  Amos-passage 
may  have  been  in  the  mind  of  the  author. 

*  v€avl<TKo%.  ""  irepipepXTjfxivos.  3  aivddva.  *  ctoK^v  XevK-^y. 
5  iirl  yvfjLvoVf  xiv,  51  ;  yvfivds,  xiv,  52. 

•  Compare  Rev.  xix,  14,  where  the  heavenly  hosts  appear  "  clothed  in  fine 
linen,  white  and  pure." 


EXAMPLES  OF  SYMBOLISM  113 

not  invoke  the  tedium  of  the  calculus  of  probabilities.  Sound 
human  understanding  does  not  wait  an  instant,  but  says  at 
once  that  the  meaning  must  be  the  same  in  the  solitary 
eleventh,  unless  there  be  insuperable  obstacles  in  the  way. 
But  there  are  no  obstacles  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
plain  sailing.  The  Celestial  is  the  Angel-Self  of  Jewish 
anthropology,  the  Persian  ferhouer  (represented  on  an 
extant  coin  as  Sapor  IL,  the  rival  of  Julian  the  Emperor),  a 
kind  of  astral  body  that  "  follows  along  with "  the  Jesus, 
robed  in  fine  linen  to  abate  its  intolerable  splendour.  The 
soldiers  try  to  seize  it,  but  it  flees  away  naked,  leaving  only 
the  linen  investiture  behind.  The  fact  that  such  an  idea 
was  not  strange  to  the  Evangelists  is  clearly  witnessed  by 
Matthew  xviii,  10  ("their  angels  do  always  behold" — 2.^., 
have  access  unto — "  the  face  of  my  Father  "). 

53.  What  does  the  Evangelist  mean  to  say  by  these 
perplexing  words?  Thus  far  he  has  represented  the  Jesus 
exclusively  as  a  god,  a  being  of  infinite  power  ;  and  now  this 
divinity  is  arrested  and  carried  away  to  trial  and  condemna- 
tion and  death  !  Arrest,  judge,  condemn,  execute  a  god  I 
How  can  these  things  be?  Apparently  the  Evangelist  would 
give  us  a  hint  that  he  is  not  to  be  taken  literally.  He  would 
whisper  to  his  reader  :  "  Of  course,  the  God-Jesus  could  not 
be  arrested,  but  only  the  garment  concealing  his  divinity,  the 
garment  of  flesh  that  he  has  put  on  in  this  my  symbolic 
narrative."  Hence  the  repeated  use  of  the  word  "naked," 
both  in  51  and  52.  Now  "  naked  "  {^v\iv6q)  is  the  equivalent 
of  disembodied  when  applied  to  a  spirit,  as  in  2  Cor.  v,  3.  Of 
the  exact  shade  and  shape  of  the  Evangelist's  thought  we  may 
not,  indeed,  be  quite  sure,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  of 
the  general  identification  of  the  "young  man"  as  a  super- 
natural being. 

54.  Here,  then,  is  a  decisive  example  of  a  deep  symbolism 
in  this  Gospel,  and  that,  too,  in  the  very  centre  of  a  mass  of 
seeming  historic  details.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  other 
more  humanising  Gospels  seem  to  have  taken  offence  at  this 
Marcan  passage — at  least,  none  has  repeated  it.  Not  strangely. 
Here,  indeed,  we  may  gather  a  hint  at  explanation  of  the 
absence  of  the  proper  conclusion  of  the  Marcan  Gospel. 
Originally  it  may  very  well  have  squinted  towards  Docetism, 


114  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

have  thus  incurred  the  disfavour  of  the  Church,  and  have 
fallen  a  victim  to  the  zeal  that  in  one  small  diocese  (says 
the  Bishop)  destroyed  such  mildly  unorthodox  documents  as 
Tatian's  Diatessaron  by  the  hundred. 

55.  Another  most  vivid  example  of  Mark's  symbolism  is 
found  in  the  Barren  Fig  Tree  (xi,  12-14,  20,  21).  Surely  no 
one  can  for  a  moment  understand  this  quite  literally.  To 
curse  a  fig-tree,  to  blast  it  and  wither  it,  because  it  did  not 
bear  figs  out  of  season  ("  for  it  was  not  the  season  of  figs  "), 
is  inconceivable  in  any  rational  being,  much  more  in  a  perfect 
man  or  a  man-god.  If  one  asks.  What,  then,  is  the  sym- 
bolism ?  the  answer  is  by  no  means  so  certain.  It  might 
seem  to  be  a  condemnation  of  some  premature  endeavour,  of 
some  promise  without  fulfilment.  It  was  once  my  notion, 
held  subject  to  revision  and  correction,  that  it  was  aimed  at 
the  movement  headed  by  John  the  Baptist,  which  seemed  to 
force  Messianism  and  the  Jesus-cult  prematurely  into  the 
open.  It  is  noteworthy  that  scant  words  of  praise  for  the 
Baptist  are  to  be  found  in  Mark.  Certainly  the  movement 
might  be  not  ineptly  likened  to  a  leaf-laden  fig-tree  suddenly 
withered  from  the  roots.  Matthew  and  Luke  would  seem  to 
have  thought  better  of  the  forerunner,  and  the  apology  they 
introduce  (Matthew  xi,  7-15  ;  Luke  vii,  24-28)  might  appear 
to  be  a  perfectly  conscious  correction  of  Mark.  On  such  a 
conjecture  one  need  not  insist ;  it  is  important  only  to 
recognise  that  the  whole  story  is  certainly  a  symbolism. 

56.  Matthew  has  given  this  incident  a  still  more  emphatic 
form  (xxi,  17-22),  in  which  the  tree  withers  instantly  {wapaxprmay 
on  the  spot)  at  the  curse  of  Jesus.  It  is  impossible  even  for 
Zahn  {£v,  d.  Matt.^  p.  616)  not  to  recognise  herein  a  symbol ; 
but,  with  the  strange  perversity  of  an  acute  intellect,  he  still 
regards  the  whole  as  historical  !  He  rejects,  justly,  the 
pretence  that  the  Jesus  merely  "  simulated  his  futile  search 
for  fruits  for  pedagogical  reasons ";  neither  was  his  wrath 
inconsiderate.  But  his  experience  with  the  tree  instantly 
became  for  him  the  emblem  (Sinnhild)  of  what  he  had  to 
experience  in  Jerusalem,  of  which  city  the  fig-tree  was  the 
symbol.  Inasmuch  as  "  Jesus  did  not  explain  the  symbol  to 
the  disciples,"  and  they  seem  not  to  have  understood  it,  he 
would  appear,  in   Zahn's  exegesis,  to  have  been  virtually 


EXAMPLES  OF  SYMBOLISM  115 

talking  to  himself  and  acting  out  parables  that  no  one  could 
comprehend. 

57.  On  turning  to  Luke  xiii,  6,  7,  we  find  the  parable  of  a 
certain  one  that  had  a  fig-tree  planted  in  his  vineyard,  and 
came  seeking  fruit  on  it  that  he  did  not  find,  and  therefore 
ordered  its  destruction.  Naturally,  we  do  not  meet  with  the 
Matthcean-Marcan  incident  in  Luke ;  his  allegory  of  the 
vineyard  seems  to  take  its  place.  Luke  declares  openly  that 
this  is  a  **  parable,"  and  the  application  to  Jewry  lies  plain 
on  its  face.  It  seems  hardly  possible  that  the  Lucan  and 
Matth^an-Marcan  incidents  should  not  be  variants  upon  one 
and  the  same  general  idea,  since  the  central  facts  of  seeing 
the  fig-tree,  coming  to  it  for  fruit,  and  getting  none,  are 
the  same  in  all.  As  illustrating  how  a  symbol  may  quite 
innocently  and  naturally  undergo  metamorphosis  into  history, 
this  parable  is  highly  interesting  and  instructive.  It  looks  as 
if  Matthew  and  Mark  had  taken  this  "  parable,"  worked  it  up, 
and  then  narrated  it  as  historical — of  course,  with  no  intent  to 
deceive  anyone,  but  very  properly  persuaded  that  anyone 
might  see  at  a  glance  that  it  was  purely  symbolical.  But 
Zahn  and  his  school  will  have  it  that  even  the  most  obvious 
allegories  were  historical,  that  the  Jesus  literally  acted  his 
sayings. 

58.  On  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  pause  for  a  moment. 
There  may  be  those  who  would  not  deny  the  often  obvious 
symbolic  meaning  of  a  Gospel  incident,  but  would  yet  hold 
that  the  incident  did  really  take  place.  In  i  Kings  xxii,  11 
(2  Chron.  xviii,  10),  we  read  that  Zedekiah  ben  Chenaanah 
made  him  horns  of  iron,  and  said  :  "Thus  saith  Jahveh,  with 
these  shalt  thou  push  the  Syrians,  until  they  be  consumed  "; 
and  there  are  other  such  symbolic  actions  mentioned  in  the 
Old- Testament.  But  everyone  will  admit  that  Zedekiah  (if 
he  really  did  as  recorded)  most  surely  wasted  his  metal  and 
his  muscle,  and  must  have  cut  a  ridiculous  rather  than  an 
impressive  figure.  Besides,  Zedekiah  and  the  rest  explain 
their  emblematic  deeds,  which,  without  such  explanation, 
would  remain  entirely  inoperative.  But  we  hear  of  no  such 
explanations  in  the  Gospels.  Consider  the  case  of  the 
healing  of  the  withered  hand.  Jerome,  as  already  observed 
(?•    30>    perceived    the   patent  symbolism  ;    it  was  Jewish 


ii6  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Humanity  lamed  by  Tradition,  healed  by  the  new  Doctrine. 
No  one  can  deny  that  the  symbolic  statement  in  Mark  is 
a  bold,  beautiful,  poetic  metaphor.  For  the  purposes  of  a 
circle  familiar'  with  such  allegories  it  seems  admirably  chosen. 
But  suppose  the  incident  had  actually  occurred.  What  would 
have  resulted  ?  Amazement,  doubtless  ;  but  would  anyone 
have  dreamed  of  the  symbolic  meaning?  Certainly  not. 
Even  supposing  the  Jesus  had  followed  up  the  miracle 
with  an  explanation  of  its  significance,  it  could  have  made 
no  impression.  Everyone  would  have  thought  of  the 
astounding  miracle  itself;  no  one  would  have  cared  for 
the  explanation,  which  would  have  seemed  trivial.  While, 
then,  a  man  might  (foolishly  enough)  go  through  some  queer 
performance  (in  itself  meaningless),  and  then  explain  it  as 
typifying  this  or  that  fact  or  idea,  yet  it  is  quite  impossible 
that  anyone  should  perform  some  confounding  miracle,  some 
wonder  in  itself  highly  significant,  and  then  explain  it 
typically.  Such  an  act  would  defeat  its  own  object,  for  the 
marvel  of  the  emblem  would  rivet  all  the  attention,  and  leave 
the  emblematised  significance  quite  forgotten.  We  may,  then, 
dismiss  the  conceit  that  the  Jesus  performed  emblematic 
wonders,  as  merely  puerile.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the 
symbolism  was  intended  not  for  then,  but  only  for  now,  to 

^  To  any  one  that  may  doubt  this  familiarity  and  the  abundant  use  of  such 
symbolism,  it  may  be  recommended  to  consider  these  passages  taken  from 
Cohen's  Les  Pharisiens  :  "  Not  daringf  to  attack  openly  the  tyrants  and  enemies 
of  Judea,  they  maintained  the  popular  hatred  towards  them  by  a  war  of  allu- 
sions which,  intelligible  only  to  their  auditors,  impassioned  them  against  the 
oppressors  of  their  country.  In  this  way,  from  the  time  of  the  Zealots,  Edom 
and  Esau,  as  types  of  tyranny  and  atheism,  became  the  personification  of 
Roman  rule.  There  was  invented  and  put  into  circulation,  against  these  two 
foes  of  Israel,  a  host  of  legends  applicable  to  contemporary  events  ;  and  these 
have  been  preserved,  although  their  hidden  meaning  was  lost  in  the  course  of 
time.  They  preached  also  the  Holy  War,  in  veiled  words,  and  that  form  oi 
warfare,  as  earnest  as  a  pitched  battle,  inflamed  the  popular  enthusiasm  " 
(Vol.  II,  p.  282).  Similarly,  others  assailed  the  Hasmonean  house,  under  guise 
of  the  academic  question  :  Would  pure  water  lose  its  purity  in  passing  from  a 
pure  to  an  impure  vessel?  The  Pharisees  said  Nay,  and  ascribed  to  the 
Sadducees  the  opinion  that  water  might  be  pure  though  issuing  from  a  field 
strewn  with  corpses.  Now,  says  Cohen  :  "The  pure  water  is  the  Hasmonean 
succession,  which,  though  present  in  the  person  of  heirs  less  worthy  than  the 
first  Maccabees,  is  none  the  less  unaltered,  whatever  the  Sadducees  may  say 
in  their  zeal  to  legitimate  the  usurpation  of  Herod  by  discrediting  the  later 
Hasmoneans.  The  field  of  corpses  signifies  the  massacres  on  which  Herod 
had  founded  his  power,  which  power  the  Sadducees  hold  to  be  legitimate  and 
respectable,  despite  its  criminal  origin  "  (I,  p.  362).  So  it  appears  that  such 
symbolism  as  we  find  in  the  Gospels  was  not  merely  a  7tative  plants  it  was  a 
rank  growth  in  the  soil  from  which  they  sprung. 


EXAMPLES  OF  SYMBOLISM  117 

teach  us.  Impossible  ;  for,  unless  we  already  have  the  ideas 
symbolised,  we  cannot  understand  the  symbol.  No  !  These 
incidents,  so  often  miraculous,  are  merely  symbolisms  ;  they 
do  nothing  but  state,  in  more  or  less  conventional  form, 
frequently  with  vigour  and  vividness,  some  truth  or  doctrine 
held  by  the  symbolist,  and  attributed  to  the  Jesus  as  the 
source  of  all  authority. 

59.  Still  more  transparent  is  the  bold  and  powerful 
account  of  the  demoniac  of  Gerasa  (Mark  v,  1-20),  which 
so  provoked  the  indignation,  contempt,  and  merriment  of  the 
militant  Huxley.  Understood  as  history,  myth,  or  legend,  it 
is  certainly  utterly  impossible,  an  offence  to  all  reason  ;  but  as 
a  symbol  it  is  little  less  than  sublime.  Immediately  as  the 
Jesus  issues  from  the  ship  upon  the  shore,  behold  !  meets  him 
(a)  Man  (notice  the  single  word  avOpwirog)  coming  out  from  the 
tombs  with  spirit  unclean.  Then  follows  the  vivid  description, 
which  we  need  not  repeat.  The  Man  is  possessed  by  a  host 
of  foul  spirits  whose  name  is  Legion.  All  are  expelled,  sent 
into  the  swine,  and  with  these  hurled  headlong  into  the  sea  ; 
whereupon  the  demoniac  seats  himself  at  the  feet  of  the 
Jesus,  clothed  and  in  his  right  mind.  Is  it  possible  not  to 
recognise  herein  Humanity — heathen  Humanity— possessed 
by  its  legion  of  foul,  false  gods,  unsubduable  to  the  laws  and 
ordinances  of  Jehovah,  which  the  Jesus-cult  restores  to  its 
right  mind  and  subjects  to  the  mild  dominion  of  truth  and 
reason  ?  It  seems  that  the  mere  statement  of  this  interpreta- 
tion is  almost  an  unanswerable  demonstration,  while  its 
perfect  harmony  with  the  rest  of  this  great  symbolic  poem- 
Gospel  merely  makes  assurance  doubly  sure.  Will  he  who 
doubts  this  interpretation  suggest  some  other? 

60.  Once  more  we  repeat  that  there  is  not  a  single 
distinctly  human  trait  or  act  ascribed  by  Mark  to  the  Jesus, 
Perhaps  the  example  that  will  instantly  arise  to  the  heart  and 
lips  of  everyone  is  the  blessing  of  the  little  children  (Mark  x, 
13-16;  Matthew  xix,  13-15;  Luke  xviii,  15-17).  Certainly 
this  is  by  far  the  most  tender  human  deed  described  in  the 
Gospels,  and  has  determined  more  than  aught  or  even  all  else 
the  current  conception  of  the  gentle  Jesus.  However,  only 
consider.  These  ^^ little  ones^^  were  believers!  "Whoever 
scandalises  one  of  these  little  ones  that  believe  (on  me)." 


ii8  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Note,  also,  that  the  question  is  about  the  admission  ot  these 
little  children  to  the  Kingdom  ;  and  it  is  declared  that  the 
Kingdom  is  (composed)  of  such' — that  is,  of  them^  not  of 
persons  like  them.  Note,  further,  that  the  disciples  rebuke 
those  that  bring  the  children  to  the  Jesus,  which  is  quite 
unintelligible  if  ordinary  babies  or  children  be  in  contempla- 
tion. What  sense  in  scandalising  a  little  child?  None 
whatever. 

6i.  Now  turn  for  a  moment  to  the  Talmud  and  read 
Jebamoth  22a,  48b,  62a,  97b,  Bechoroth  47a :  "  sojourner 
who  becomes  a  proselyte  is  like  a  little  one  who  is  born."^ 
And,  again,  Maimon.  Mishneh  Torah,  Issure  Biah,  chap,  xiv, 
par.  II  :  "Gentile  that  is  proselytised  and  the  slave  that  is 
free,  behold  !  he  is  like  a  little  one  new  born."  Here,  then, 
the  matter  is  made  perfectly  clear.  These  "  little  children  " 
or  **  little  ones"  are  neither  more  nor  less  than  Gentile 
proselytes  or  converts  ;  the  question  is  about  their  admission 
on  equal  terms  with  the  Jew  into  the  Kingdom,  the  difficult 
question  that  so  vexed  the  early  Church.  The  writers  are  all 
liberal ;  they  insist  on  the  equal  rights  of  the  Gentile  ;  and 
Matthew,  with  his  wonted  splendid  rhetoric,  denounces  ruin 
upon  whoever  would  scandalise  them — that  is,  make  them 
offend  by  imposing  upon  them  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies 
or  restrictions  which  they  would  fail  to  observe,  and  so 
would  catch  them  as  in  a  trap.  Especially  noteworthy  is 
the  use  of  the  term  "  little  ones "  six  times  in  the  New 
Testament  (Matthew  x,  42  ;  xviii,  6,  10,  14  ;  Mark  ix,  42  ; 
Luke  xvii,  2),  always  in  the  sense  of  Gentile  converts,  in 


'  Compare  herewith  the  saying  of  Heraclitus  {Hipp.  Rel.y  ix,  9):  "  Mon 
(life?  Zeus?)  is  a  child  sporting,  playing  draughts;  of  a  child  (is)  the 
Kingdom."  It  seems  to  have  been  famous,  and  is  surely  "dark"  enough 
to  satisfy  the  most  fastidious.  Note  also  that  the  "little  ones"  and  the 
•'  children  "  are  the  same,  as  is  clear  from  Matthew  xviii,  1-6. 

'  Compare  herewith  /.  /*.,  ii,  2  :  "As  newborn  babes  long  for  the  doctrinal 
undeceiving  milk,  that  by  it  ye  may  grow  unto  salvation,  if  ye  have  tasted  that 
Chrestus  is  the  Lord.^''  Chrestus  is  here  only  another  form  for  Christus,  as 
Clemens  Alex,  and  Augustin  perceived.  Similar  is  the  sense  of  "  babes  "  in 
the  great  Gnostic  Hymn  (Matthew  xi,  25-30) :  "  I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of 
heaven  and  earth,  that  thou  didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and  under- 
standing, and  didst  reveal  them  unto  babes."  It  is  the  rejection  of  the  Jesus- 
cult  by  the  Jews,  and  its  acceptance  by  the  Gentiles.  Note  that  it  is  a  doctrine 
on  which  the  new-born  feed  and  thrive.  The  ordinary  translation,  "  The  Lord 
is  good"  or  "gracious,"  cannot  be  correct,  because  not  in  accord  with  the 
context. 


EXAMPLES  OF  SYMBOLISM  119 

exact  accord  with  the  Talmud,  which  does  not  say  child 
{yeled),  nor  suckling  {yanik)^  nor  aught  else  but  little  one 
{qaton). 

62.  We  see  now  with  perfect  clearness  the  noble  and 
beautiful  meaning  of  this  passage,  and  we  see  further  that 
it  bears  not  the  faintest  nor  remotest  witness  to  the  humanity 
of  the  Jesus  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  testifies  eloquently  in  favour 
of  the  system  of  interpretation  it  illustrates.  The  question  as 
to  whether  Paul  the  apostle  be  obliquely  hinted  at  in  the 
little  child  set  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples  may  be  left  undis- 
cussed. 

63.  The  prevailing  symbolism  repeatedly  exemplified  in 
the  foregoing  pages  is  so  deeply  interwoven  in  the  intimate 
texture  of  the  Gospels  that  to  illustrate  it  adequately  would 
call  for  a  verse-by-verse  interpretation,  such  as  already 
mentioned  on  p.  96,  but  quite  impossible  in  this  connection. 
However,  it  must  not  pass  unnoticed  that  the  failure  to 
observe  the  often  thinly-veiled  sense  of  these  scriptures  has 
betrayed  the  most  learned  critics  into  fallacies  they  would 
easily  have  escaped.  Thus,  in  a  very  recent  interview 
(Baltimore  American^  February  13,  19 10),  the  renowned 
Assyriologist  of  Johns  Hopkins,  rejecting  the  positions  of 
Professor  Drews  (known  then,  perhaps,  only  through  the 
very  inadequate,  and  even  misleading,  reports  of  the  daily 
press),  declares  that  some  "one  man,"  some  commanding 
personality,  lies  behind  every  world-stirring  movement,  and 
that  therefore  the  Jesus  was  historical — which  sounds  like  a 
rectification  or  specification  of  the  well-known  Bacbuc  oracle 
of  Hegel,  that  -*  individuals  stand  at  the  head  of  all  actions, 
and  therefore  of  the  world-historical  also."  Yet  the  ordinary 
view  is  that  "  in  the  Hegelian  system  ideas  supersede 
persons";  and  the  lamented  Professor  Friedrich  Paulsen, 
in  his  well-known  Introduction  to  Philosophy^  pp.  3,  4,  affirms 
exactly  the  opposite,  referring  "mythico-religious"  phenomena 
to  the  ** collective  mind":  ''Nowadays  no  one  speaks  of  a 
founder  of  the  Egyptian  or  the  Greek  religion."  True  he 
says,  **  The  Christian  and  Mohammedan  religions  have  their 
religious  founders";  these  he  mentions  as  peculiar  and 
exceptionail — and  very  naturally,  for  he  had  not  then  read 
Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  and  been  ''  blinded  by  the  multitude 


I20  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

J  of  new  views,"  as   he  wrote  shortly  before   his  too   early 
passing.^ 

64.  But,  to  take  a  single  decisive  example,  one  would 
like  to  know  who  was  the  human  personality,  "  the  com- 
mittee of  one,"  back  of  Mithraism,  which  neared  or  touched 
Christianity  at  so  many  vital  points,  and  which  for  so  many 
years  disputed  with  it  the  Roman  Empire — at  last,  indeed, 
unsuccessfully,  but  in  large  measure  because  it  was  a  man's, 
a  soldier's,  religion  (as  protector  of  warriors  Mithra  received 
for  his  companion  Verethragna^  or  Victory — Cumont),  and 
failed  to  make  provision  for  the  Eternal  Womanly.  Was 
Mithra,  whose  worship,  as  witnessed  by  monuments,  girdled 
the  whole  Roman  Empire  from  the  Black  Sea  to  the  lochs  of 
Scotland  and  the  Desert  of  Sahara — was  Mithra  really  an 
historic  personality  ?  Or  was  he  an  immemorial  divinity, 
the  Light  **ever  waking,  ever  watchful,"  "the  Lord  of  wide 
pastures"? 

65.  In  the  same  interview  we  find  a  liberal  interpreta- 
tion of  the  miracle  of  Cana.  The  jars  held  water,  not 
wine.  The  guests  grumbled  at  such  a  "  dry "  feast ;  but 
afterwards,  recalling  how  beautifully  Jesus  talked  to  them, 
they  said  it  was  really  wonderful  ;  no  one  minded  the 
drought ;  it  seemed  **  as  though  a  miracle  had  been  per- 
formed, and  he  had  turned  the  water  into  wine."  "Thou 
art  so  near  and  yet  so  far."  It  seems  strange  that  inter- 
pretation can  go  so  widely  astray  and  yet  touch  the  right 
path  at  an  important  point.  By  such  exposition  the  whole 
miracle  is  reduced  to  the  utmost  triviality,  and  the  Jesus  is 
equated  with  some  charming  post-prandial  speaker.  That 
such  a  thing  could  have  been  in  the  mind  of  the  Fourth 
Evangelist,  profound  and  solemn  as  the  ether  itself,  the  far- 
flying  eagle  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  is  about  as  if 
Hegel  should  have  incorporated  the  Ballad  of  Nancy  Bell  in 
the  second  chapter  of  his  Science  of  Logic.  Yet  the  meaning 
of  the  Gnostic  Evangelist  is  really  not  far  to  seek.     In  the 

'  Some  well-disposed  reader  may  instance  Buddhism  and  Confucianism  ;  but 
neither  of  the  Buddha  nor  of  Reverend  Master  Kung-  do  we  know  enough  to 
estimate  his  personal  contribution  to  the  system  that  bears  his  name.  We 
may  be  sure,  however,  that  the  doctrine  was,  like  the  Gospel  commandment, 
made  for  those  that  could  receive  it — that  it  was  indigenous  to  the  soil  in  which 
it  thrived. 


EXAMPLES  OF  SYMBOLISM  121 

Synoptics  we  read  :  "  And  no  one  puts  new  wine  into  old 
bottles "  (Mark  ii,  22) ;  and  again  :  ''  Can  the  sons  of  the 
bride-chamber  fast  while  the  bridegroom  is  with  them?" 
(Mark  ii,  19,  20).  Here,  then,  we  have  the  presence  of  Jesus 
with  his  disciples  figured  as  a  wedding  feast,  and  his  ''  new 
doctrine  "  as  new  wine  that  could  not  be  put  into  old  skins, 
which  it  would  burst.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  find  these 
same  ideas  worked  up  into  a  distinct  account  of  a  miracle, 
precisely  in  the  painstaking,  artistic  fashion  of  the  Fourth 
Evangelist.  In  comparison  with  the  wine  of  the  "new 
doctrine,"  the  old  formalism  of  the  Jews  was  mere  water  in 
the  jars  "  of  stone  set  there  after  the  Jews'  manner  of  purify- 
ing." At  his  command  the  wine  gushes  forth  in  abundance, 
such  wine  as  the  guests  had  never  drunk  before.  What 
wine,  do  you  ask?  The  same  wine  contemplated  in  the 
Synoptics — the  wine  of  the  "  New  Doctrine."  Hereat,  indeed, 
the  world  wonders  ;  hereby  the  new  God  did,  indeed,  manifest 
his  glory  ;  and  no  marvel  that  his  disciples  believed  on  him. 
66.  Such  is  the  miracle  of  Cana,  the  transformation  of 
the  Jewish  formal  doctrine  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  working 
outward  purifying,  into  the  new  spiritual  doctrine  of  the 
Jesus,  cleansing,  reviving,  and  inspiring  "the  inner  man." 
The  abundance  of  this  great  "gift  of  the  spirit"  is  clearly 
hinted  in  one  little  feature  of  the  narrative  :  the  water-pots 
were  filled  to  the  brim.  They  were  six,  each  of  two  or  three 
firkins — that  is,  of  18  or  27  gallons  ;  the  six  would  have  held 
from  108  to  162  gallons — certainly  a  full  supply  in  any  case, 
especially  after  the  "wine  of  the  marriage  had  been  con- 
summated."""  Very  queer  sounds  this  clause  of  the  Sinaitic 
Codex,  confirmed  by  countless  authorities,  for  which  as  many 
others  have  the  wholly  different  "wine  having  failed";'' 
whence  it  appears  that  the  clause  is  a  later  insertion,  designed 
to  explain  the  succinct  original  statement,  "  and  wine  they 
had  not" — that  is,  the  "new  doctrine,"  the  Jesus-cult,  was 
not  yet  theirs.  Now  we  see  clearly  who  is  this  "  Mother  of 
the  Jesus" — none  other  than  the  Jewish  Church,  as  Jerome 
long  ago  clearly  perceived  ;^  the  same  mother  who  with  "  his 

^  8ti  (rvvereXiadT]  6  olvos  tov  yd/nov.  "  i/ffrep^aavTOS  otpov. 

3  For  in  commenting  on  Galatians  i,  19  he  says  :  "  Now  let  this  suffice,  that 
on  account  of  his  high  character  and  incomparable  faith  and  extraordinary 


122  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

brethren  stood   without "  (the   Kingdom),  calling  him   and 
seeking  him  (Mark  iii,  31-35). 

67.  This  great  marriage  feast  at  Cana  is,  then,  nothing 
less  than  the  introduction  of  the  Jesus-cult  into  the  world, 
the  wedding  of  the  Greek  and  Jewish  religions  into  the  "  new 
doctrine "  destined  to  rejuvenate  the  earth.  Most  appro- 
priately, it  is  called  the  "  beginning  of  the  signs,''  where  we 
may  almost  translate  (T-qjxuwv  by  "symbols."  Of  course,  in 
all  such  elaborations  certain  details  are  introduced  merely 
for  artistic  effect,  and  it  would  be  puerile  to  dwell  on  such  or 
to  attempt  to  force  an  interpretation  ;  but  it  seems  really 
surprising  how  accurately  the  symbolism  is  carried  out,  and 
how  vividly  the  general  situation  is  delineated.  Kindred 
remarks  hold  of  all  the  Gospel  narratives.  Hosts  of  par- 
ticulars may  be  only  delicate  touches  of  the  author's  pencil, 
designed  simply  to  heighten  the  colour  or  to  improve  the 
dramatic  setting ;  and  occasionally  some  ancient  mythical 
motive  may  have  been  active,  or  some  historical  reminiscence 
{ftot  of  the  Jesus)  ;  yet  it  is  astonishing  how  large  a  fraction 
of  the  Gospel  total  urgently  invites  symbolic  interpreta- 
tion.' 

68.  The  foregoing  exegesis  of  this  passage  seems  so 
very  obvious  that  little  honour  can  attach  to  originality,  or 
even  to  priority.  It  may,  however,  not  be  amiss  to  remark 
that  it  was  worked  out  fully  by  the  present  writer  in  a  paper 
written  some  twenty  years  ago  on  Numerical  Symbolism  in 


wisdom  he  was  called  the  Lord's  brother,  and  because  he  was  the  first 
that  presided  over  the  Church  which,  the  first  to  believe  in  Christ,  had  con- 
sisted of  Jews.  The  other  apostles  are  also  called  brothers  (John  xx,  17, 
Psalm  xxii,  22) ;  but  he  pre-eminently  is  called  brother  to  whom  the  Lord,  at 
his  departure  to  the  Father,  had  committed  the  sons  of  his  mother"  («.^.,  the 
members  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  as  is  manifest  and  is  stated  in  the  words 
Hierosolymae,  scilicet  in  the  Index  locupletissimus  to  Jerome's  works). 

'  The  foreg^oingf  paragraph  seems  to  be  important.  To  disregard  the 
contribution  of  the  poetic  faculty,  and  to  insist  on  the  emblematic  inter- 
pretation of  every  detail,  would  be  fatal  to  any  proper  comprehension  even  ot 
avowed  allegory.  As  an  example,  take  the  famous  parable  of  the  People 
Israel  as  a  vineyard,  found  in  Isaiah  v,  1-7.  Here  the  general  sense  is 
straightway  obvious,  and  the  interpretation  is  expressly  given  in  verse  7. 
But  who  can  interpret  the  various  details  of  verse  2  ?  No  one.  They  serve 
merely  to  make  vivid  the  main  idea  that  Jehovah  had  been  very  kind  to 
Israel ;  they  are  mere  filling.  Scores  of  similar  instances  present  them- 
selves in  the  Gospels.  We  must  be  content  to  recognise  the  general  content 
in  the  broad  outlines,  in  the  diagram  of  the  symbol,  and  not  seek  to  trace  it 
in  the  more  delicate  shadings. 


EXAMPLES  OF  SYMBOLISM  123 

the  Fourth  Gospel  (not  published,  but  circulated  privately), 
and  was  with  him  original.  Since  then  he  has  read  Thoma's 
discussion  in  Das  Johannes-Evangeltum  (1882),  pp.  411-418, 
where  the  story  is  interpreted  symbolically  with  great 
minuteness ;  while,  strangely  enough,  the  heart  of  the 
matter,  the  identification  of  the  wine  with  the  **  new 
doctrine,"  is  omitted.  Kreyenbiihl,  in  his  Evangelium  der 
Wahrhett  (igo^)  J  glances  at  this  ''sign"  repeatedly,  under- 
standing it  quite  correctly  (i,  441,  587  ff.;  ii,  372,  481-483). 
Indeed,  for  one  that  has  feeling  for  the  atmosphere  of  thought 
that  envelopes  this  Gospel  it  appears  not  easy  to  go  far 
astray. 

69.  It  remains  to  observe  that  the  notion  of  wine 
instead  of  water  is  very  familiar,  and  is  found  in  Philo 
(Leg-.  Alleg.y  ii,  76a)  ;  "  But  let  Melchisedek  bring 
forth  wine  instead  of  water,  and  drench  and  fortify  souls, 
that  they  be  possessed  of  divine  intoxication  more  sober 
than  sobriety  itself.  For  a  Priest  is  Logos,  that  has 
the  Ens  as  lot,  and  sublimely  thereof  and  importantly 
and  magnificently  speaketh.  For  of  the  Highest  he  is 
Priest " 

70.  Here,  then,  is  a  well-marked  example  of  evangelic 
symbolism,  plain  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.  Almost 
equally  clear  are  all  the  other  (six)  signs  in  this  "spiritual" 
Gospel.  Thus,  consider  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes, 
given  also  in  several  forms  in  the  Synoptics.  Professor 
Paul  Haupt  thinks  that  the  hearers  of  Jesus  listened  as  in  a 
trance,  **  none  thought  of  luncheon,"  and  "this  story,  told 
and  retold,  came  to  assume  the  evidence  and  character  of  a 
miracle" — an  interpretation  of  which  it  would  be  hard  to 
find  even  a  faint  suggestion  in  any  of  the  texts  (Matthew 
xiv,  17-21;  XV,  32-38;  Mark  vi,  34-44;  viii,  1-9;  Luke 
ix,  12-17  5  John  vi,  5-71).  Even  more  serious,  the  essence 
of  the  matter  is  again  evaporated  or  made  utterly  trivial. 
Who  could  have  any  reverence  for  a  religion  that  originated 
in  such  silly  misunderstandings  and  exaggerations?  Are 
the  four  Gospels  to  be  interpreted  as  specimens  of  Rocky 
Mountain  humour?  Sincerely  and  unreservedly  as  we 
admire  the  learning  and  ability  of  such  expositors,  we  must 
reject  their    expositions   without    hesitance,    as    inadequate 


124  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

historically  and   unequal   every   way   to   the    psychological 
demands  of  the  case.* 

71.  John  is  himself  the  earliest  interpreter  of  the 
Synoptics  ;  and  his  interpretation,  while,  of  course,  it  must 
be  interpreted,  is  nevertheless  a  trustworthy  and  unam- 
biguous guide.  We  notice  the  long  discourse  with  which 
he  supplements  his  brief  account.  The  Jesus  himself  figures 
therein  as  the  bread  of  life,  the  bread  that  came  down  from 
heaven.  To  eat  him  is  to  sate  hunger  forever.  "  Except  ye 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have 
not  life  in  yourselves."  "For  my  flesh  is  true  meat,  and  my 
blood  is  true  drink."  It  seems  that  language  could  hardly 
be  plainer ;  that  the  meaning  must  be  patent  to  the  dullest 
sense.  It  is  simply  certain  that  this  bread  and  wine  of  the 
spirit  must  be  a  doctrine,  an  idea,  a  cult.  To  eat,  to  feed  on 
learning,  is  a  form  of  speech  familiar  to  all  times,  modern 
as  well  as  ancient.  **  Eat  this  roll,  and  go  speak  unto  the 
house  of  Israel  "  (Ezek.  iii,  i),  is  the  angel's  command  to  the 
Son  of  Man.  "  And  I  took  the  little  book  out  of  the  angel's 
hand  and  ate  it  up  "  (Rev.  x,  10). 

72.  This  weighty  thought  of  complete  appropriation  of 
the  ''  New  Doctrine  "  under  the  emblems  of  wine  and  bread 
(of  life)  has  found  impressive  symbolic  expression  in  the 
Eucharist,  and  is  still  preserved  under  such  names  as  trans- 
or  con-substantiation — quantum  mutatus  ah  illo !  Notice 
that  it  is  the  disciples,  the  first  learners  of  the  "  New 
Doctrine,"  that  distribute  it  to  the  multitude;  nor  is  there 
meant  any  personal  teaching  received  from  the  Jesus,  for 
nowhere  in  the  New  Testament,  nowhere  in  the  apostolic  or 
even  immediately  post-apostolic  age,  do  we  find  any  such 
teaching  in  any  measure  the  burden  of  their  proclamation. 
On  the  contrary,  it  was  not  any  teaching  hy  the  Jesus,  but  a 
doctrine  about  the  Jesus,''  that  they  everywhere  published 
from  shore  to  shore,  as  did  the  eloquent  missionary  Apollos 

*  Most  interestkig-  is  the  "  solution  "  g-iven  by  Schweitzer  {Quest  of  the  His- 
torical Jesus  ^  p.  374),  •'  that  the  whole  is  historical,  except  the  closing-  remark 
that  they  were  all  filled."  Far  from  being  "  filled,"  "each  received  a  very 
little  ";  it  is  a  "  morsel  of  bread  which  he  gives  his  disciples  to  distribute  to  the 
people."  There  would  seem  to  be  little  magic  in  such  a  miracle  ;  but  how 
would  it  have  pleased  the  hung-ering  multitudes?  Would  they  have  hoped 
much  from  the  kingship  of  such  a  wonder-worker? 

^  rd  7re/)i  rov  'lTj(rou. 


THE  DIDACTIC  ELEMENT  125 

all  round  the  Mediterranean  long  before  he  had  heard  of  the 
New  Testament  story,  "  knowing  only  the  Baptism  of  John  '* 
(Acts  xviii,  24,  25). 

73.  As  already  stated,  space  is  wanting  to  discuss  further 
the  miracles  of  the  Jesus,  and  to  exhibit  the  deep  symbolism 
that  pervades  them  all.  But  before  concluding  these 
specimens  let  me  insist  once  more  that  it  is  on  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  that  the  issue  is  most  sharply  joined.  "  The  main 
data  of  his  life  as  enumerated  in  the  Gospels,  especially  in 
Mark,  may  have  actually  occurred  "  (Open  Courts  January, 
1910,  p.  30)  !  Nay,  it  is  precisely  in  this  Gospel  that 
the  humanising  process  has  scarcely  begun,  that  we  can  see 
the  divine  lineaments  most  unmistakably,  the  human  scarcely 
at  all.  "And  then,"  says  Pindar's  Medeia,  "the  lonely- 
faring  god  came  suddenly  upon  us,  having  cast  about  him 
the  shining  semblance  of  a  reverend  man."  There  is,  in 
fact,  in  this  earliest  extant  evangelic  story  not  a  distinctive 
human  feature  ;  it  is  indeed  hardly  even  in  any  guise  of 
man,  but  openly  and  unambiguously  as  God,  that  the  Lion 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah  strides  through  this  Gospel.  Who  will 
overturn  this  universal  negative  by  producing  a  single 
unequivocal  affirmative  instance  ? 

THE  DIDACTIC  ELEMENT 

74.  As  to  the  "  Sayings  "  (Logoi,  Logia),  descended  from 
a  source  higher  up  than  the  narration,  they  have  been 
assembled  from  every  point  of  the  literary  compass.  Thus, 
for  Matthew  v,  25  (Luke  xii,  58)  we  must  turn  to  the  Twelve 
Tables,  I  ;'  that  a  Roman  consciousness  is  speaking  is  plain 
from  the  word  quadrans  (Ko§/oavrrjv),  which  Luke  naturally 
turns  into  XtTrrov  (though  D,  with  others,  retains  fcoSjoavrr^v). 
For  the  justly  famous  saying  (Mark  ii,  27),  **  The  sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  sabbath,"  we  revert 
to  2  Maccabees  v,  19  :  "  For  not  the  race  for  the  place,  but  the 
place  for  the  race  the  Lord  elected."  The  antithetic  senti- 
ments, **  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me  "  (Matthew 
xii,  30 ;  Luke  xi,  23),  and  "  Who  is  not  against  us  (you)  is 
for  us  (you) "  (Mark  ix,  40 ;  Luke  ix,  50),  were  uttered  the 

*  Si  in  ius  vocat,  ito.  Ni  it,  antestamino  ;  igitur  em  capito. 


126  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

\  first  by  Pompey,  the  second  by  Caesar,  and  most  appro- 
priately by  each,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Civil  War,  as  we 
read  in  Cicero,  pro  Q.  Ligario,^  "There  is  none  good  but 
one,  God"  (Mark  x,  i8  ;  Luke  xviii,  19)  recalls  the  Pytha- 
gorean maxim, ^  ''There  is  none  wise  but  God";  while  the 
very  significant  form,  "  Why  askest  thou  me  about  the 
good?  One  is  the  Good"  (Matthew  xix,  17),  repeats  the 
doctrine  of  the  Megarean  Euclid  :  *'  One  is  the  Good,  though 
called  by  many  names"  {Diog.  Laert,  ii,  106).  True,  the 
gender  is  masculine  in  Matthew,  but  the  sense  and  pertinence 
of  the  answer  to  the  question  require  the  neuter,  and  the  two 
genders  were  not  distinguished  in  the  primitive  Aramaic. 
Merx  renders  the  Syriac  :  "  Was  fragst  du  mich  iiber  das 
Gute?  Denn  einer  ist  der  Gute  (oder  :  der  Gute  ist  einer, 
Oder  :  Das  Gute  ist  eines)."  Plainly  only  the  last  is  relevant 
to  the  query. 

75.  The  profoundest  recesses  of  ethical  character  are  laid 
bare  in  the  famous  verse  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
Matthew  v,  28 ;  but  the  same  depths  had  already  been 
fathomed  400  years  before  by  the  second  head  of  the 
Academy:  "Xenocrates,  the  companion  of  Plato,  used  to 
say  that  it  matters  not  whether  one  put  the  feet  or  the  eyes 
into  the  house  of  another  ;  for  the  sin  is  the  same  when  one 
views  regions,  and  when  one  enters  places  one  ought  not" 
(Aelianus,  Varice  Historice^  xiv,  42).  The  difference  between 
the  two  pronouncements  is  not  ethical,  but  rhetorical ;  and 
the  writer  has  no  quarrel  with  anyone  who  prefers  the 
rhetoric  of  the  Evangelist  to  that  of  the  philosopher. 

Naturally,  the  thought  became  a  commonplace  in  Greek 
ethics,  and  even  much  earlier.      "  What  a  beautiful  boy  !  '* 

*  33*  "Valeat  tua  vox  ilia,  quae  vicit :  te  enim  dicere  audiebamus  nos 
omnis  adversaries  putare,  nisi  qui  nohiscum  essent  ;  te  omnis,  qui  contra  te  non 
essent,  tuos."  It  is  peculiarly  gratifying-  to  find  in  Preuschen's  Zeitschrift fiir 
die  neutestaineniliche  Wissenschaft,  igi2,  I,  pp.  84-87,  a  careful  discussion  by 
W.  Nestle,  who  reaches  precisely  the  conclusion  here  enounced  as  obvious  on 
bare  statement.  But  when  he  says,  "  Certainly  neither  our  evangelists  nor 
their  source  knew  Cicero's  oration,"  he  would  seem  to  be  wise  above  what  is 
written,  though  he  is  right  in  regarding  these  sayings  as  '*  winged  words " 
flying  round  the  Mediterranean.  It  matters  little  that  Nestle  does  not  mention 
the  priority  of  ^cc^  Z)^M5  at  this  point.  Such  omissions  are  no  less  frequent 
than  trivial.  Critics  may  not  like  to  disfigure  their  pages  with  such  personali- 
ties. 

"  Reproduced  by  Plato  {Phaedrus,  278,  D)  :  r6  jxh  ao^Sv,  c&  #at5pc,  KoXeiv 
^fioiye  lUya  eXvai  5ok«,  koL  OeQ  fi6v(p  irpiirnv. 


THE  DIDACTIC  ELEMENT  127 

said  Sophocles  ;  but  Pericles  answered,  reproachfully  :  *'  An 
official  must  hold,  not  only  his  hands,  but  also  his  eyes  in 
check." 

The  doctrine  of  self-abasement  (as  it  stands  written, 
especially  in  Matthew  xxiii,  11,  12)  seems  at  first  blush  alto- 
gether peculiar  to  the  Gospel.  In  fact,  however,  it  was 
known  well  enough  even  in  Roman  imitations  of  Greek 
moralists,  as  appears  from  Cicero,  De  Officiis,  i,  90  :  "  So 
that  they  appear  to  teach  rightly  who  admonish  us,  the 
higher  we  are,  the  more  humbly  [summissius]  to  deport 
ourselves."  Yea,  we  may  confidently  maintain  that,  if  we 
possessed  the  Greek  ethic  in  its  original  form  and  entirety, 
including  the  writings  of  Antiochus  and  his  Fifth  Academy, 
instead  of  merely  meagre  remnants  or  dim  and  confused 
reflections  thereof,  we  should  find  anticipated  practically  the 
whole  ethics  of  the  New  Testament.  Even  the  dogma  of  the 
duty  of  Universal  Love  to  man  must  have  found  expression 
therein,  for  it  is  only  an  immediate  and  obvious  corollary 
from  that  other  still  deeper  dogma  of  Common  Humanity,  of 
Man  as  Man,  which  Cicero  so  loves  to  re-echo  in  his  favourite 
word,  humanitas.  Hence,  it  followed  directly  that  one  should 
treat  every  man,  even  the  unworthy,  even  one's  enemies,  with 
kindness — yea,  with  affection  ;  for  were  they  not  one's  fellow- 
men  ?  Assuredly,  it  is  not  to  persecutors  as  persecutors,  but 
as  our  brother-men,  that  we  are  to  do  good.  Exactly  to  this 
point  of  view  had  Aristotle  already  attained  ;  for  when 
reproached  for  doing  a  good  deed  to  a  reprobate,  he 
answered  :  **  Not  to  the  man,  but  to  the  human."  ^ 

It  is  this  same  dogma  that  forms  the  basis  of  the  Law  ot 
Reciprocity,  the  Golden  Rule  (Matthew  vii,  12),  as  well  as  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  equality  of  all  men  in  the  eyes  of  the  God 
of  nature  (Matthew  v,  45). 

75<2.  The  doctrine  of  the  tree  to  be  judged  by  its  fruits  is 
conspicuous  in  the  Gospels  (Matthew  vii,  16-21  ;  Luke  vi, 
43-46).  But  it  was  a  commonplace  far  older  than  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Says  Ovid  {Ars  Amat.y  I,  747) :  "  If 
any  one  hopes  this,  let  him  hope  tamarisks  will  bear  apples, 
and  let  him  search  for  honey  in  the  river's  mud."     Plutarch 

*  Stobaeus,  37,  32  :  oi  t^  &vdp(iyir(p  dXX4  rif  dvdpoirlv(f. 


128  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

also  {De  Tranq.  An.,  xiii)  :  "We  do  not  expect  the  vine  to 
bear  figs,  nor  the  olive  clusters."  How  idle,  then,  to  ask 
whether  the  question  in  Matthew  vii,  i6  or  Luke  vi,  44  be  the 
original.     Both — and  neither. 

75^.  At  this  point  it  becomes  necessary  to  note  the  fact 
that  the  most  distinctive  feature  of  the  Gospel,  or  at  least 
of  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  is  their  prevailing  sententious 
character.  More  than  all  else,  it  is  the  gnomic  allied  with 
the  parabolic  element  that  impresses  the  reader,  and  has 
shaped  the  current  idea  of  the  uniqueness  of  these  composi- 
tions and  their  incontrovertible  testimony  to  a  single  incom- 
parable originative  personality.  In  fact,  however,  it  is  pre- 
cisely this  self-same  stylistic  quality  that  stamps  these  writings 
as  not  emanating  from  one  remarkable  individual,  but  as  the 
aggregated  product  of  the  collective  intelligence  of  nations 
and  ages.  A  teacher  may,  indeed,  intersperse  his  discourse 
with  occasional  apljorisms  ;  but  living  speech,  almost  exclu- 
sively aphoristic,  would  be  unnatural,  and  would  repel  rather 
than  attract.  The  poems  of  such  as  Phocylides  and  Theognis, 
the  Maxims  of  a  Rochefoucauld,  the  Lacon  of  Colton,  and 
other  such  "Proverbial  Philosophies,"  are  the  laboured 
outputs  of  years  of  solitary  reflection.  A  proverb  is,  indeed, 
the  wisdom  of  many,  but  it  is  rarely  the  wit  of  one.  He  who 
examines  even  a  dictionary  of  quotations,  or  collates  saws  in 
various  languages,  must  soon  perceive  that  their  perfected 
forms  have  nearly  always  been  gradual  growths  that  may  be 
traced  back  through  cruder  and  more  cumbrous  stages. 
Even  in  the  Gospels  themselves  we  find  many  examples  ot 
more  and  of  less  consummate  artistry.  Witness  the  energic 
grandeur  of  Matthew  vii,  24-27  ;  how  superior  to  Luke  vi, 
47-49  !  Compare  also  the  more  primitive  Lucan  Sermon  in 
the  Plain  with  the  far  more  elevated  and  spiritualised  Matthasan 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Compare  likewise  that  brilliant 
cluster,  the  Beatitudes,  with  its  constituent  gems  lying 
scattered  in  Isaiah  Iv,  i,  Ixi,  2  ;  Jeremiah  xxxi,  24  ;  Psalms 
xxiv,  3,  4,  xxxvii,  11,  cix,  28,  cxxvi,  5,  6.  Surely  it  is  not 
hard  to  forgive  the  scribe  who,  by  omitting  a  single  letter  (<t), 
has  sublimed  the  primary  angelic  song,  "  Glory  on  high  to 
God,  and  on  earth  peace  among  men  of  (His)  good-will " 
(ue»y  His  people  Israel),  into  "Glory  on  high  to  God,  and 


THE  DIDACTIC  ELEMENT  129 

on  earth  peace,  among  men  good-will."  Such  cameo  work 
abounds  in  these  scriptures.  The  starry  words  of  the  New 
Testament  are  evidently  stones  that  have  been  polished  to 
perfection  by  the  attrition  of  the  ages. 

75c.  There  can  hardly  be  a  more  serious  error  than  to 
ascribe  this  purely  literary  quality  to  the  personality  of  Jesus, 
or,  indeed,  to  any  other.  Aside  from  the  fact  that  he  would 
in  all  probability  have  spoken  Aramean,  the  literary  style — 
so  far  ranging  from  Mark  to  John — stands  in  no  relation  to 
the  supposed  individuality.  Jesus  and  John  are  thought  as 
contrasted,  and  even  antipodal ;  yet  their  styles  are  the  same. 
The  great  speech  of  the  latter  (Matthew  iii,  7-12),  with  slight 
changes,  would  fit  as  well  the  lips  of  the  former.  Indeed, 
both  denounce  the  Pharisees  as  a  ** brood  of  vipers" 
(Matthew  iii,  7 ;  xxiii,  33) ;  both  use  precisely  the  same 
words  about  the  Tree  and  the  Fire  (Matthew  iii,  10  ;  vii,  19) ; 
they  proclaim  the  Kingdom  in  identical  terms  (Matthew  iii,  2 ; 
iv,  17). 

75<^.  In  this  connection  the  recent  papyrus  finds, 
with  their  new  **  Sayings  of  the  Jesus,"  are  of  striking 
interest.  Though  each  introduced  by  the  solemn  formula, 
"  The  Jesus  says  " — apparently  exactly  in  line  with  the  Old 
Testament  preamble,  "Thus  saith  Jehovah"  —  they*  seem 
often  to  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  Gospels  but  the 
unmistakable  gnomic  stamp — the  hall-mark  of  the  earliest 
Christian  literature.  Clearly  they  are  disiecta  membra  of  a 
once  imposing  organism.  Such  Logoi  may  have  existed 
aforetime  in  almost  countless  number.  Oblivion  has 
swallowed  them  up  with  so  much  else  of  ancient  literature. 
Here  and  there  some  few  have  escaped,  and  are  seen  rari 
nantes  in  gurgite  vasto.  The  salvage  of  our  canonics  is  like 
the  seven  tragedies  of  Sophocles— seven  out  of  eighty  ! 
We  may  suspect,  however,  that  what  has  survived  is  the 
best — not  all  of  it  the  best,  nor  all  of  the  best,  but  on  the 
whole  the  most  worth  saving.  The  Christian  consciousness 
has  sifted  and  re-sifted,  has  tested  the  spirits  whether  they  be 
of  God  ;  it  has  polished  and  refined,  has  set  and  re-set,  the 
precious  stones,  until  the  great  citadel  of  its  faith  gleams  and 
flashes  like  the  bejewelled  gates  of  the  New  Jerusalem. 

75^.  Illustrations  of  the  foregoing  theses  might  be  fnulti- 


130  TESTIMONY  OF  TH^  NEW  TESTAMENT 

plied  interminably.  Take  one  additional,  to  which  Eisler 
(Weltenmantel  und  Himmelszelt,  p.  733)  has  already  called 
attention.  In  Herodotus  (I,  141)  Cyrus  answers  the  request 
of  lonians  and  Cohans  for  terms  they  had  already  rejected 
with  the  ** saying"  of  the  fisher  who,  having  caught  in  a  net 
the  fishes  he  had  vainly  tried  to  lure  ashore  by  piping,  on 
observing  their  leaping  about,  said  to  them  :  "  Cease  dancing 
for  me  now,  since  when  I  piped  you  would  not  come  out  and 
dance."  Evidently  this  was  a  familiar  fable,  to  which  the 
Gospel  parallel  (Matthew  xi,  17  ;  Luke  vii,  32)  harks  back, 
in  expanded  and  more  rhythmic  form,  though  in  being 
diverted  to  its  new  application  its  edge  has  been  somewhat 
turned.  Such  "-^sopic  say ings " (Logoi)  abounded,  and  formed 
a  staple  of  cultured  Hellenic  table-talk,  just  as  the  Italian 
interlards  his  speech  with  proverbs  and  the  American  with 
humorous  exaggerations.  The  Evangelists  did  not,  indeed, 
take  from  Herodotus,  but  from  the  common  treasury  of 
ancient  wit  and  wisdom.  To  attempt  to  deduce  the  character 
of  Jesus  from  the  "  Sayings  "  ascribed  to  him  is  like  trying 
to  make  out  the  features  of  the  man  that  sat  for  a  composite 
photograph. 

76.  In  still  further  illustration  let  it  be  noted  that  the 
remarkable  and  important  statement  of  the  method  of  Jesus 
(Mark  iv,  33,  34),  ''And  without  a  parable  spoke  he  not  unto 
them,  but  privately  to  his  own  disciples  he  expounded  all 
things,"  seems  echoed  back  from  the  Thecetetus  of  Plato 
(152,  C),  where  Socrates  exclaims  :  "  Well,  then,  by  the 
Graces,  was  not  Protagoras  an  almighty  wise  one,  who. 
spake  this  in  enigma  to  us  the  mixed  multitude,  but  to  his 
disciples  in  secret  spake  the  truth?"  For  the  celebrated 
oracle  concerning  the  two  ways  (Matthew  vii,  13,  14)  we 
revert  to  the  Eleusinian  mysteries  ;  for  the  saying  about 
measures  (Matthew  vii,  2)  to  Hesiod  ;  for  the  terrible  picture 
of  social  conditions  preceding  the  impending  cataclysm 
(Mark  xiii,  12,  13  ;  Matthew  x,  21)  to  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions. Similarly,  in  i  Cor.  ii,  9  we  hear  a  clear  echo  of 
Empedocles  (I,  8,  9a,  Plut,  Mor,  17E) :  "So  neither  seen 
are  these  things  by  man,  nor  heard,  nor  by  mind  com- 
prehended." 

77.  In   the  mysterious    utterance,   i    Cor.   xv,   28,  '*  that 


THE  DIDACTIC  ELEMENT  131 

God  may  be  all  things  in  all,'"  we  meet  with  the  famous 
doctrine  (homoeomery)  of  Anaxagoras,  that  all  elements  or 
"  seeds  of  things  "  were  so  completely  mixed  that  something 
of  each  appeared  in  each,  ''all  things  in  everything."^  So, 
too,  the  extraordinary  combination  in  Eph.  iii,  18,  **the 
breadth  and  length  and  height  and  depth,"  is  a  formula 
recurrent  in  the  magic  papyri. 

78.  Likewise  the  pathetic  exclamation  in  Romans  (vii,  24), 
"  Me,  miserable  man  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this  death?"  is  heard  again  in  Epiktetus,  quoted  by 
M.  Antoninus  (iv,  41),  ''  Thou  art  a  little  soul  carrying  a 
corpse,"  as  is  also  the  notable  verse  (vii,  15)  describing  the 
inner  conflict  of  natures,  "■  For  not  what  I  would,  that  do  I 
practise  ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  I  do."  So  Epiktetus  declares 
{Diss,  II,  xxvi,  4) :  ''(The  sinner)  (6  a^ia^ravinv)  what  he  will, 
does  not;  and  what  he  will  not,  does."  This  epistle  (not  to 
the  Romans,  but  "  to  all  those  that  are  in  love  of  God  "  ^)  is, 
in  fact,  in  high  degree  Stoical,  as  witness  the  frequent 
recurrence  of  "  God  forbid  "  (^7)  yevotro),  the  logical  use  of 
which  was  peculiar  to  Stoical  disputation.  It  pervades 
Epiktetus. 


*  Ifva  17  6  ^e6s  [tA]  Traira  iv  ira(riv. 

^  Kal  oIjtoos  d.v  etr)  iv  Travrl  irdvTa,  iravTUV  jjikv  iv  ira.aiv  ivdvTuv,  and  many 
equivalent  phrases. 

3  So  reads  the  older  text  of  i,  7  :  tSLo-iv  tois  oda-tv  iv  aydirri  deov — see  the  proof 
in  the  writer's  article  in  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literaturcy  Part  I,  pp.  1-21, 
1901,  and  the  words  of  Harnack  in  a  following-  number  of  Preuschen's 
Zeitschrift  (1902,  p.  84) :  "  It  is  the  custom  to  remain  content  with  the  Received 
Text,  but  Smith  is  right  in  declaring  it  interpolated";  and  again,  after  state- 
ment of  reasons:  '*'Ev  'Pufirj  is,  therefore,  to  be  regarded  as  a  very  old  inter- 
polation." In  his  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament^  i,  278  (1897),  Zahn  spoke 
of  the  absence  of  iv  'l^dj/J-v  "in  ancient  times  "  "from  an  occidental  (Nr.  i,  2) 
and  an  oriental  (Nr.  5,  6)  text,"  but  never  suggested  that  either  was  the  original 
text.  On  the  contrary :  "  We  see,  therefore,  much  rather  a  process  of  text- 
corruption,  which,  having  begun  in  i,  7,  has  in  G  developed  so  much  further  as 
to  involve  i,  i6,  also."  After  writing-  to  me  twice  about  it  and  pondering  the 
demonstration  given  in  1901  and  Harnack's  acceptance  thereof  in  1902,  in  the 
third  edition  of  his  Einleitung  (p.  273  ff.)^  he  has  abandoned  his  former 
position,  and  "  has  given  the  exacter  proof"  that  the  text  with  "^o»z^"  cannot 
be  "  original ";  and  he  repeats  and  completes  the  same  in  his  recent  commentary 
on  Romans^  Exc.  I.,  p.  615^.,  still  speaking  of  iv"P(S}/ji,r)  (instead  of  'Pci/ij?),  as 
interpolated  !  Similarly  Lietzmann,  in  his  commentary  just  appearing.  But 
neither  of  the  twain  mentions  the  present  writer,  because,  forsooth,  as  a  mere 
outlandish  author,  he  has  no  rights  that  they  are  bound  to  respect.  A  queer 
survival  of  primitive  "  group  "  morality. 


132  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

THE  PAULINE  QUADRILATERAL 

7aL^We  are  thus  brought  to  the  '*  Pauline  "  epistles,  and 
especially  to  the  "  acknowledged  "  first  four — the  innermost 
citadel  of  liberal  criticism.  When  driven  from  every  other 
stronghold,  the  higher  critic  will  certainly  take  refuge  in  this- 
redoubtable  quadrangle.  No  elaborate  attempt  can  be  made 
in  this  work  to  dislodge  him  thence.  Only  a  few  observa- 
tions, however,  are  needed  to  show  that  even  it  is  not 
impregnable. 

80.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  precisely  the  long-continued 
study  of  these  epistles  that  drove  this  writer  to  his  present 
position.  In  fact,  the  extremely  slight  dependence  of  exactly 
these  four  on  any  biographical  theory  of  the  Jesus  is,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  present  discussion,  their  most  striking  feature. 
We  do,  indeed,  hear  of  the  death  and  resurrection  ;  but  in 
the  only  allusion  in  Romans  (e.g.)  to  the  crucifixion  it  is 
declared  (vi,  6),  **  knowing  this,  that  the  old  man  was 
concrucified  "  (with  the  Christ  ?) ;  and  again,  "  we  were  then 
consepulchred  with  him  "  (vi,  4) ;  so,  too,  in  Gal.  ii,  20 :  "I 
have  been  concrucified  with  Christ."  Of  course,  it  is  easy  to 
say  that  these  expressions  are  mere  figures  ;  but  if  there  was 
a  symbolic  burial  (in  baptism,  as  all  admit),  why  not  also  a 
symbolic  crucifixion  ? 

81.  Consider,  again,  the  phrase  in  Gal.  iii,  i  :  "O  foolish 
Galatians,  who  was  bewitching  you,  to  whom  before  your 
eyes  Jesus  Christ  was  portrayed  crucified?"  The  word 
irposypcKjiri  (portrayed)  hardly  admits  of  satisfactory  render- 
ing, but  it  indicates  certainly  a  most  vivid  depiction,  and 
apparently  a  physical  representation,  and  much  more  than 
a  teaching  "  most  definitely  and  plainly  concerning  the 
meritorious  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ " — a  thing  which 
Peter  and  Paul  nowhere  do  in  Acts. 

82.  Consider,  again,  the  Pauline  boast,  "  bearing  round 
always  in  the  body  the  dying  of  the  Jesus  "  (2  Cor.  iv,  10), 
and  that  other,  '*  For  I  carry  in  my  body  the  brands'  {aTiyp.aTa) 
of  the  Jesus  "  (Gal.  vi,  17) ;  and  it  will  seem  hard  to  resist  the 


*  Similarly  mig-ht  the  follower  of  Mithras  have  spoken,  for  he  was  branded 
indelibly  with  a  hot  iron  (Cumont,  Les  Religions  orientates,  p.  xiv). 


THE  PAULINE  QUADRILATERAL  133 

suggestion  that  there  was  in  the  very  earliest  initiations,  as 
part  of  "  the  mystery  of  godliness,"  some  physical  representa- 
tion of  the  suffering  God,  in  which  the  initiates  shared  a 
symbolic  life-and-death  history,  perhaps  not  wholly  unlike 
what  was  enacted  in  Greek  mysteries.  Further  guesses  need 
»„^not  now  be  hazarded  at  this  point,  but  reference  may  be 
made  to  i  Tim.  iii,  16  as  lending  colour  to  the  foregoing. 

8s»  An  objector  will  certainly  cite  the  Last  Supper  as 
witnessed  in  i  Cor.  xi,  2^ff.  But  the  remarkable  thing  is 
that  the  apostle  does  not  profess  to  know  about  this  matter 
(itself  a  symbolism,  as  we  have  just  seen)  from  any  human 
historic  testimony  (as  that  accomplished  Grecian,  Georg 
Heinrici,  clearly  perceives,  and  sets  forth  in  Meyer's 
Commentary),  but  by  divine  revelation :  **  For  I  received 
from  the  Lord  what  I  also  delivered  to  you,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  &c.  We  may  not  be  sure  what  the  apostle  means, 
but  it  is  surely  not  any  witness  he  bears  to  the  supposed 
historic  fact.     (See  Addendum,  infra.) 

84.  Once  more,  that  these  epistles  are  saturated  with 
Gnosticism  comes  variously  to  light.  A  single  illustration 
must  suffice.  In  i  Cor.  xv,  8,  we  read  :  "  And  last  of  all,  as 
if  to  the  Ektroma,  he  appeared  also  to  me."  Our  translators 
have  rendered  wcnrepeX  t(^  iKTpdyfiaTL  by  **  as  unto  one  born  out 
of  due  time";  but  in  so  doing  they  omit  an  important  word, 
the  definite  article  ti^  (to  the).  Their  word  one  excludes  the 
Greek  article.  This  translation  cannot,  then,  be  correct ;  it 
does  not  give  the  sense  of  the  original.  The  subtlest  spirit  of 
Protestant  exegesis,  Carl  Holsten,  gives  half  a  large  page  of 
fine  print  to  explaining  this  "  dark  expression  ";  but  in  the 
end  he  elicits  nothing  that  is  less  dark,  though  confident  that 
his  "  alone  "  "  is  the  explanation  of  the  whole  passage."  This 
same  he  had  evolved  from  his  own  inner  consciousness,  in 
apparent  disdain  or  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  the  Ektroma  is 
a  constantly  recurring  term  in  the  Gnostic  doctrine  of  Sophia 
and  the  ^ons,  where  it  is  entirely  in  place  and  quite  compre- 
hensible, however  visionary.  That  such  a  doctrine  and 
application  of  the  term  could  have  proceeded  from  this 
passage,  to  which  they  are  quite  unrelated,  is  in  the  last 
degree  improbable  ;  that  the  term  should  have  been  imported 
into  our  passage  and  used  there  as  sufficiently  definite  and 


134  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

well  known  to  call  for  no  comment  is  a  simple  and  natural 
literary  phenomenon.     (See  Addendum,  infra.) 

85.  Meyer  and  Heinrici  explain  the  article  ru}  as  desig- 
nating Paul  as  "  pre-eminently  the  premature  birth  {Fehlge- 
hurt)  among  the  apostles "  !  Paul,  whose  birth  into  their 
ranks  was  not  premature,  but  postmature  !  Nor  do  they 
any  more  than  Holsten  dream  of  the  Gnostic  employment  of 
the  term.  But  when  they  tell  us  of  '*  what  weight  Paul  here 
and  in  ix,  i  lays  on  the  actual  and  real  appearance  of  the 
Lord,"  we  must  reply  that  he  does  indeed  put  his  own 
experiences  in  the  same  line  with  those  of  the  others.  Hence 
we  may  judge  of  theirs  by  his  own  ;  but  his  own  seem  to 
have  been   purely  intellectual,  or  at   least   mental   merely : 

"  When  it  pleased  (God) to  reveal  His  Son  in  (or  through) 

me,  that  I  should  preach  him  in  the  nations,  straightway  I 
conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood,  etc."  (Gal.  i,  15-17). 
Meyer  and  Heinrici  have  imported  the  words  ''actual  and 
real  "  out  of  their  own  theory  into  the  statement  of  the 
Apostle,  to  whom  these  appearances  were  not  visions,  but 
spiritual  perceptions  of  the  fundamental  dogmas  of  his 
propaganda. 

86.  Turn  which  way  you  will,  then,  it  becomes  ever 
clearer  that  exegesis  and  commentary  have  hitherto  been 
playing  on  the  face  of  these  wondrous  scriptures,  that  there 
is  everywhere  a  far  deeper  primitive  sense  than  even  the 
critics  have  suspected,  that  we  have  been  feeding  on  the  husk 
and  not  on  the  kernel,  that  we  have  been  trying  to  sound 
the  depths  of  the  ocean  with  fish-hooks. 

87.  This  remark  leads  to  the  further  observation  that  the 
scheme  of  interpretation  herein  sporadically  exemplified — an 
interpretation  so  strenuously  suggested  and  recommended  by 
the  pre-eminence  of  the  parable  in  the  Gospels — could  hardly 
be  misunderstood  more  completely  than  if  supposed  directed 
against  the  New  Testament,  or  even  against  Christianity  in 
its  original  sublime  conception.  Interpretation,  indeed,  has 
strictly  nothing  to  say  either  for  or  against ;  it  raises  no 
question  of  true  or  false  ;  its  sole  object  is  to  understand,  to 
reveal  the  mind  of  the  author,  to  find  out  precisely  what  he 
meant,  what  he  intended  to  say.  Faith  and  unfaith  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  case. 


ADDENDA  135 

88.  However,  it  is  possible  and  even  proper  to  lay  two 
interpretations  side  by  side  and  to  ask  which  is  the  nobler, 
worthier,  more  inspiring,  more  uplifting,  more  soul-satisfy- 
ing. Such  a  test  must  not  indeed  affect  in  the  least  our 
critical  judgment,  for  our  allegiance  is  due,  first  and  last  and 
all  the  time,  to  the  truth,  to  the  God  of  things  as  they  are  ; 
yet  we  need  not  disclaim  either  preference  or  aspiration. 
Accordingly,  comparison  is  boldly  invited,  comparison  of  the 
symbolic  interpretation  with  either  the  current  liberal  or  the 
traditional  conservative,  in  the  confident  anticipation  that 
any  unbiassed  intelligence  will  perceive  that  the  interpretation 
here  illustrated  is  not  only  historically,  philologically,  and 
theologically  justified  and  demanded,  but  that  it  renders  far 
superior  honour  and  majesty,  power,  beauty,  and  sublimity 
to  the  Apostles  and  to  the  New  Testament,  to  the  Christian 
religion  and  to  the  Jesus  the  Christ. 


ADDENDA 


I.— JESUS  THE  LORD 

89.  A  very  plain  indication  (which,  like  other  matters 
discussed  in  these  Addenda,  could  not  find  a  natural  place 
for  treatment  in  the  body  of  the  foregoing  discourse,  but  is 
too  important  to  be  passed  by  unnoticed)  of  the  very  early 
identification  of  the  Jesus  with  Jehovah  is  found  in  the 
regular  application  to  him  of  the  term  Kyrios  (Lord),  which 
is  the  uniform  Septuagint  rendering  of  the  divine  name,  the 
tetragram  JHVH,  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  true  that  this 
word  Kyrios  is  also  employed  in  the  New  Testament  precisely 
as  is  the  term  lord  in  English,  or  seigneur  in  French,  or 
Herrxn  German.  Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  such  use  as  a  class 
name,  when  used  with  the  article  and  without  specification, 
as  in  the  lord^  and  der  Herr,  and  le  seigneur,  it  is  perfectly 
unambiguous,  and  means  Jehovah,  God.  So,  too,  in  the  New 
Testament :  Lord,  the  Lord,  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  Lord  Christ, 
all  mean  one  thing,  and  only  one  thing — namely,  the  Supreme 
Being — the  Jehovah  of  the  Hebrew,  the  God  of  the  Greek. 


136  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

90.  In  the  case  of  such  a  usage,  much  depends  upon  the 
consciousness  on  which  it  is  based.  If  any  deeply  religious 
western  Aryan  in  this  age  speaks  of  the  Lord,  the  Saviour, 
the  Redeemer,  the  Messiah,  no  one  ever  dreams  of  any  other 
than  the  one  necessary  reference.  The  speaker  would  be 
horrified  if  anyone  should  misunderstand  him.  Now  the 
consciousness  that  speaks  to  us  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  more  intensely  religious  than  perhaps  any  at  the 
present  day ;  it  was  saturated  with  the  Septuagint  and 
kindred  versions  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  use  of  the 
term  Kyrios  to  designate  God  and  to  translate  Jehovah 
(Adonai)  was  as  familiar  to  it  as  indeed  it  was  possible  for 
any  use  to  be.  When,  then,  such  a  consciousness  applies 
the  term  regularly  to  the  Jesus,  the  conclusion  is  quite 
unescapable  that  it  would  thereby  identify  the  Jesus  with 
Deity. 

91.  Let  it  be  noted  carefully  that  this  application  of  the 
divine  name  is  not  a  late  phenomenon.  It  did  not  make  its 
appearance  gradually ;  there  is  no  trace  of  slow  and  cautious 
introduction.  By  no  means  !  The  very  earliest  layers  of 
the  New  Testament  deposit,  if  we  may  trust  the  results  of 
critical  inquiry,  show  this  usage  as  distinctly  as  the  latest. 
Leaving  aside  all  possibly  doubtful  cases,  we  find  the  Jesus 
called  the  Lord  in  Matthew  xxi,  3  ;  xxviii,  6  (not  to  mention 
iii,  3);  Mark  xi,  3  (xvi,  19);  Luke  ii,  11,  26;  vii,  13,  19; 
X,  I,  39j  41  ;  xi,  39;  xii,  42  ;  xiii,  15  ;  xvii,  5,  6  ;  xviii,  6; 
xix,  8  ;  xix,  31,  34  ;  xxii,  61  ;  xxiv,  3,  34  ;  Acts,  i,  21  ;  iv,  33  ; 
V,  14;  viii,  16;  ix,  I,  et  passim.  In  the  Epistles,  even  the 
very  earliest  (supposedly),  as  Galatians  and  i  Thessalonians, 
the  usage  in  question  is  so  well  known  and  regular  as  to 
make  citations  superfluous,  if  not  impertinent.  Similarly  in 
the  Apocalypse,  as  we  have  already  seen. 

92.  In  fact,  the  term  is  applied  so  indiscriminately  that 
it  is  a  matter  of  difficulty  and  often  impossibility  to  determine 
whether  the  reference  is  to  the  Lord  God  the  Jehovah  of  the 
Old  Testament,  or  to  the  Lord  Jesus  the  New  Testament 
Jehovah.  This  notable  and  indisputable  phenomenon  seems 
to  exclude  positively  every  theory  of  a  gradual  deification  of 
the  Jesus.  Had  any  such  process  taken  place,  it  appears 
scarcely  possible  that  no  trace  of  it  whatever  should  have 


ADDENDA  137 

survived,  and  that  the  earliest  extant  literature  in  equal 
measure  with  any  other  should  have  unhesitatingly  and  with- 
out explanation  applied  to  the  Jesus  a  term  that  on  its  face 
identified  him  with  the  Supreme  Deity. 

93.  Hereto  we  must  add  the  further  consideration  that 
doubts  and  questionings  concerning  the  human  character  of 
the  Jesus  make  themselves  heard  both  in  and  out  of  the  New 
Testament  precisely  as  we  might  expect,  if  the  notion  was  not 
primitive.  Thus,  no  trace  of  such  a  scruple  is  to  be  found  in 
the  great  mass  of  the  New  Testament  scriptures.  If  the 
earliest  propaganda  proclaimed  a  God,  an  over-earthly  being 
to  whom  a  certain  earthly  career  was  ascribed  only  symbolically 
and  by  way  of  teaching  certain  profound,  important,  and 
revolutionary  truths — if  no  one  at  first  took  this  ascription 
literally,  but  understood  it  correctly  in  harmony  with  the 
general  religious  conceptions  of  the  age  and  clime — then  there 
is  nothing  to  wonder  at :  the  earliest  presentations  contain  no 
controversy  on  this  point,  because  this  point  was  not  in 
dispute  ;  it  was  fairly  and  generally  comprehended. 

94.  If,  as  the  days  went  by,  the  symbolism  began  to 
crystallise  and  to  be  taken  literally,  if  increasing  emphasis 
fell  upon  the  human  aspect,  upon  the  historic  representation, 
the  incarnation  or  coming  in  the  flesh,  then  the  champions 
of  this  materialism  would  naturally  begin  to  recommend  it 
in  writing ;  they  would  declare  it  was  the  truth,  and  the  only 
truth,  and  they  would  proceed  to  denounce  the  non-progressive 
adherents  of  the  elder  view  as  old  fogies,  as  heretics,  and  as 
schismatics. 

95.  Exactly  such  denunciation  we  find  in  the  admittedly 
late  First  and  Second  Epistles  of  John.  In  i  John  iv,  2,  the 
test  is  stated  :  ''  Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God  :  Every 
spirit  which  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh 
is  of  God  :  and  every  spirit  which  confesseth  not  (or  annulleth) 
Jesus  is  not  of  God  :  and  this  is  the  (spirit)  of  the  antichrist, 
whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  cometh  ;  and  now  it  is  in  the 
world  already."  Similarly  2  John  7:  "For  many  deceivers 
are  gone  forth  into  the  world,  (even)  they  that  confess  not 
that  Jesus  Christ  cometh  in  the  flesh.  This  is  the  deceiver 
and  the  antichrist."  Here,  then,  at  that  comparatively  early 
date,  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church  we  find  these  antichrists, 


138  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

whose  offence  was  not  that  they  denied  the  Christ,  but  that 
they  rejected  the  coming  in  the  flesh  as  an  historical  fact, 

96.  Of  course,  we  are  told  universally  that  this  rejection 
was  a  new  error  just  introduced  into  the  Church.  Certainly, 
in  all  such  cases,  each  side  must  represent  its  view  as  the 
good  old  truth,  the  other  as  a  novelty  and  false.  The  ''  anti- 
christs "  whom  John  denounces  would  almost  surely  have 
replied  that  theirs  was  the  old  truth  and  his  the  new  error. 
Which  was  right?  We  must  weigh  the  probabilities  in  the 
case.  Observe  that  John  represents  a  rather  lower  view  of 
the  Jesus  Christ  than  is  familiar  to  us  from  the  early  scrip- 
tures. The  Jesus  is  presented  almost  exclusively  as  the  Son^ 
in  contradistinction  from  the  Father.  Such  a  Son  is,  of 
course,  divine,  but  the  naive,  unquestioning  identification  of 
the  Jesus  with  God  is  not  found.  These  Johannine  epistles 
nowhere  use  the  term  Lord, 

97.  It  seems  impossible  to  read  these  epistles  without 
feeling  that  the  position  assigned  to  the  Son  is  distinctly 
subordinate  to  that  of  the  Father.  Very  different  is  the 
earlier  language  of  Acts,  of  the  Paulines,  of  the  Apocalypse, 
of  the  Synoptics,  where  the  Son-Father  relation  is  indeed 
expressed,  but  not  so  emphasised,  and  where  the  Jesus  is 
continually  called  by  the  highest  designation  of  Lord. 

98.  Now,  if  the  humanity  of  the  Jesus  was  an  integral 
part  of  the  earliest  Christian  consciousness,  then  at  the  date 
and  stage  represented  by  the  Johannines  this  consciousness 
would  seem  to  be  growing  faint,  even  passing  away  among 
many.  Along  with  this  there  would  naturally  go  an  increas- 
ingly lively  consciousness  of  the  divinity,  an  exaltation  or 
even  an  over-exaltation  of  his  Godhead.  This,  however,  we 
do  not  find  ;  rather  the  opposite,  at  least  in  the  Johannines. 
Nor  can  we  make  it  at  all  clear  how  the  denial  of  the  humanity 
came  about,  if  from  the  first  it  was  preached  and  belonged 
essentially  to  the  propaganda.  No  superior  wit  is  required 
to  recognise  that  the  natural  desire  to  make  vivid  the  doctrine 
and  symbols  in  question  would  of  itself  bring  forth  a  host  of 
narratives  all  contributing  to  the  humanisation  of  the  Hero. 
No  one  that  postulates  the  fundamental  principles  of  human 
nature  can  fail  to  admit  the  necessity  of  such  a  process,  which 
seems  to  be  attested  at  countless  points  in  the  New  Testament 


ADDENDA 


139 


itself,  and  by  universal  admission  has  produced  an  innumer- 
able host  of  apocryphal  and  extra-canonical  stories. 

99.  The  current,  in  all  these  writings  that  we  know  aught 
of,  sets  unmistakably  and  undisputably  towards  humanisation. 
Nevertheless,  the  Johannines  (and  the  same  may  be  said 
with  even  stronger  emphasis  of  the  Ignatians)  witness  incon- 
testably  the  existence  of  such  as  denied  the  humanity,  as 
resisted  the  humanisation.  Either,  then,  this  latter  view  of 
the  matter  originated  near  the  time  of  the  Johannines  and 
Ignatians  (say  near  but  after  100  a.d.),  or  it  was  itself 
original,  and  the  humanising  view  came  forward  con- 
spicuously about  that  time.  Remember,  the  humanising 
tendency  is  a  fact ;  it  is  attested  by  all  history,  and  in  this 
particular  case  it  is  superfluously  proved  and  incontestable  ; 
whereas  the  opposite  dehumanising  tendency  is  entirely 
hypothetic,  unwitnessed  by  any  fact,  and  devised  solely  to 
account  for  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  those  who  denied  the 
humanity.  As  such  an  hypothesis  we  must  reject  it,  unless 
it  he  necessary ;  it  is  shaved  off  by  Occam's  Razor. 

100.  But  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  ;  nay,  it  is  not  only 
superfluous,  but  cumbrous  and  bewildering.  Let  us  suppose 
for  an  instant  that  the  divinity  of  the  Jesus,  and  not  the 
humanity,  was  the  primitive  doctrine  ;  then  the  observed 
humanisation  follows  naturally,  almost  inevitably,  from 
fixed  psychological  laws  ;  the  championship  of  John  and 
Ignatius  becomes  so  intelligible  as  to  call  for  no  explanation, 
and  the  heretical  "  antichrists "  appear  as  nothing  but 
familiar  old  fogies  left  behind  on  the  primitive  standpoint. 

loi.  On  the  other  hand,  suppose  that  the  conception  of 
the  Jesus  as  a  man  was  the  original  ;  then  the  course  of 
development  becomes  oscillatory,  and  hard  or  impossible  to 
understand.  Following  this  supposed  earliest  conception  we 
find  that  of  Mark,  in  which  the  key-note  of  humanity  is  lost, 
drowned  in  the  note  of  divinity.  But  this  latter  begins 
straightway  to  grow  slightly  flat,  while  the  human  sounds 
out  louder  and  louder,  till  suddenly  once  more  it  is  damped 
nigh  to  extinction  among  the  Docetists,  while  ringing  clearer 
and  clearer  among  the  orthodox.  These  undulations  remain 
scarcely,  if  at  all,  intelligible,  after  infinite  efforts  to  explain 
them.     Strictly  rectilinear  development  we  may  not  in  reason 


I40  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

expect,  but  any  imagined  evolution  from  an  original  doctrine 
of  the  humanity  of  the  Jesus  seems  highly  unnatural  and 
improbable. 


II.— DIFFUSED  LIGHT  OF  SYMBOLISM 

102.  The  interpretation  of  the  Gospels,  particularly 
Mark's,  as  symbolic  exhibitions  of  the  progress  of  the  Jesus- 
cult  enlightens  many  a  dark  point  in  the  ordinary  under- 
standing of  those  scriptures.  For  example,  we  are  told 
(Mark  vi,  5,  6)  that  in  ''  his  own  country  "  ''  he  could  do  no 
mighty  work,"  and  that  "  he  marvelled  because  of  their 
unbelief."  Mark  here  implies  what  Matthew  expresses — 
that  he  did  not  work  many  miracles  there  "  because  of  their 
unbelief."  Now,  this  seems  passing  strange,  that  his  wonder- 
working should  be  conditioned  by  their  belief  or  unbelief. 
Elsewhere  we  find  his  power  easily  transcending  any  such 
limitations.  Surely  the  stilling  of  the  tempest  was  not 
rendered  less  easy  by  their 'Mittle  faith."  The  son  of  the 
widow,  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  and  finally  Lazarus,  long  since 
committed  to  the  tomb,  did  not  have  to  believe  in  order  to 
be  revived.  In  fact,  the  notion  that  any  power  of  physical 
healing  or  other  thaumaturgy  possessed  by  the  Jesus  was 
dependent  on  the  faith  of  anyone  seems  quite  unworthy  of 
the  Son  of  God  and  the  New  Testament,  and  fitter  for  Mrs. 
Mary  Baker  Eddy  and  the  Science  of  Health, 

103.  Nevertheless,  not  only  here,  but  almost  as  ex- 
plicitly in  other  places  in  the  Gospels  (as  in  Mark  ix,  23), 
this  dependence  of  the  power  of  the  Jesus  on  the  faith  of 
the  subject  is  affirmed,  and  even  emphasised.  Incompre- 
hensible as  this  must  be  so  long  as  we  think  of  the  Jesus  as 
an  historic  personage,  it  is  not  only  comprehensible,  but 
almost  self-evident,  as  soon  as  we  think  of  him  as  standing 
for  his  doctrine,  his  cult.  Plainly  the  spiritually  healing 
power  of  such  teaching  depends  essentially,  if  not  absolutely, 
upon  the  faith  of  the  taught. 

104.  Here,  then,  we  see  clearly  vindicated  the  supreme 
position  held  by  faith  in  the  Christian  system — not  faith  in 
a  person^  to  which,  in  spite  of  all  the  might  of  the  deep- 


ADDENDA  141 

eddying  ocean  of  oratory  that  has  been  poured  round  it  for 
so  many  centuries,  no  adequate  idea  can  ever  attach,  but 
faith  in  a  Doctrine,  in  an  Idea,  the  Idea  of  the  One  God,  the 
Heart  of  the  Universe,  the  unifying  Principle  of  the  Cosmos, 
conceived  and  worshipped  not  merely  as  King,  Creator, 
Ruler,  but  also  as  the  Healer,  the  Guardian,  the  Saviour  of 
the  World.  It  is  this  ethical,  metaphysical,  religious,  philo- 
sophic, theosophical  Idea  that  meets  us  in  endlessly  diverse 
forms  throughout  the  earliest  Christian  literature,  whether 
apostolic  or  post-apostolic,  whether  in  the  New  Testament  or 
in  the  Fathers,  whether  in  Apocalypse  or  Apocrypha,  whether 
in  Evangelist  or  Epistolist  or  Apologist :  an  idea  quite  as 
conspicuous  by  its  presence  in  all  this  literature  as  the 
human  personality  of  the  Jesus  is  conspicuous  by  its  absence. 
It  is  this  Idea  that  conquered  the  circummediterranean  world 
for  Christianity ;  that,  having  almost  perished,  revived  later 
in  distorted  and  degenerate  form,  yet  still  found  strength  to 
subdue  the  Asian  and  African  coast  to  Mohammedanism. 
Let  no  one  marvel  that  an  idea  should  work  such  wonders. 
What  else  but  ideas  have  ever  accomplished  the  really  great 
things  of  history  ?  Hereby  we  need  enkindle  no  strife  with  the 
hero-worshippers.  Ideas  must  incorporate  themselves  in 
personalities. 

105.  Perhaps  no  one  would  forgive  the  writer  even  of  a 
slight  sketch,  should  he  pass  over  without  any  notice  the 
Last  Week  in  Jerusalem.  Here  such  severe  analysts  as 
Brandt  think  they  find  the  very  ultimates,  the  irresoluble 
elements  of  the  earliest  and  most  veridical  tradition.  In 
truth,  however,  the  conditions  are  not  very  peculiar ;  no 
special  difficulties  of  interpretation  are  present.  It  is  a  great 
idea,  the  idea  of  salvation  through  suffering,  the  suffering  of 
a  God,  that  has  received  most  elaborate  and,  at  points,  even 
pathetic  dramatisation.  This  was  the  very  centre  of  the 
splendid  historic  canvas,  and  most  naturally  it  has  been 
treated  with  especial  care  and  delicacy  of  detail.  But  the 
guidance  of  ideas  has  at  no  point  been  abandoned  ;  on  the 
contrary,  it  has  been  everywhere  followed  with  noteworthy 
conscientiousness.  The  vague  general  notion  of  a  great 
vicarious  sufferer  seems  almost  as  old  as  humanity  itself; 
certainly    it    might    have    been     suggested     by    aboriginal 


142  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

experiences,  even  should  we  not  refer  it  ultimately  to  the 
awful  phenomenon  of  an  eclipse  of  a  Sun-  or  Moon-God, 
which  must  have  impressed  deeply  the  devotees  of  any  astral 
religion.  But  for  the  capital  detail  of  the  Crucifixion  we 
should  look  much  nearer  home.  The  notion  of  the  impale- 
ment of  the  Righteous  found  its  classical  and  immortal 
expression  in  the  second  book  of  the  Republic,  in  a  context 
of  matchless  moral  sublimity.^  Glaukon,  putting  Socrates 
on  his  mettle,  draws  the  liveliest  possible  picture  of  the 
sufferings  of  the  Just  who  is  thought  unjust :  "  He  will  be 
scourged,  will  be  racked,  will  be  bound,  will  have  his  eyes 
burned  out,  (and)  at  last  having  suffered  every  ill  he  will  be 
crucified  "  (361  D).  The  last  verb  {avaaxLv^vX^vw)  is  commonly 
rendered  by  ** impale,"  and  is  rare;  but  it  is  the  exact 
equivalent  of  avacxKoXoTrt^w,  which  again  is  exactly  the  same 
as  ava(TTavp6(i)  (as  in  Philo  i,  237,  687),  which  appears  in 
Heb.  vi,  6  (where  it  has  been  falsely  rendered  crucify  again), 
and  is  the  regular  Greek  word  for  crucify,  shortened  also 
into  (TTavpou),  the  New  Testament  term.  The  ava  means  up, 
and  not  again, 

106.  How  deeply  this  image  of  the  Righteous  crucified 
had  stamped  itself  on  the  religious  consciousness  seems 
remarkably  attested  by  the  fact  (to  which  M.  Salomon 
Reinach  has  called  attention)  that  in  the  Psalmist's  descrip- 
tion of  the  sufferings  of  the  Righteous  (Israel)  the  LXX 
have  rendered  the  Hebrew  ka^aH  by  lopv^av  :  "  they  dug 
through  (A.  V.  pierced)  my  hands  and  my  feet."  Now,  it  is 
true  that  the  Hebrew  is  highly  uncertain,  but  in  any  case  we 
can  hardly  believe  the  writer  meant  dig  or  pierce,  because 
the  act  is  attributed  to  dogs  (heathen),  who  might  tear  or 
rend  or  do  other  cruel  things,  but  would  scarcely  pierce  or 
dig  through  hands  and  feet.  Whether  or  not,  then,  the 
LXX  understood  the  Psalm  (and  particularly  this  v.  17) 
messianically,  as  do  the  moderns,    their  translation   would 

^  If  anyone  would  estimate  the  uplift  in  ethical  theory  during  two  thousand 
years,  let  him  compare  Plato's  treatment  with  that  of  the  greatest  Anglican 
Church  dignitary,  Bishop  Butler,  Sermon  xi,  21,  in  fine :  "Let  it  be  allowed, 
though  virtue  or  moral  rectitude  does  indeed  consist  in  affection  to  and  pursuit 
of  what  is  right  and  good,  as  such ;  yet,  that  when  we  sit  down  in  a  cool 
hour,  we  can  neither  justify  to  ourselves  this  or  any  other  pursuit,  till  we  are 
convinced  that  it  will  be  for  our  happiness,  or  at  least  not  contrary  to  it." 
Consider  also  the  apologetic  note  suffixed  by  Gladstone. 


ADDENDA  143 

seem  to  indicate  that  they  entertained  the  idea  of  a  crucifixion 
as  the  climax  of  the  passion  of  the  Just.  Such  being  the 
case,  this  form  of  execution  of  the  Jesus  was  imposed  upon 
any  religious  consciousness  nourished  on  the  Septuagint,  as 
was  the  Evangelic.  Hence  followed  with  a  certain  necessity 
that  He  should  be  executed  by  the  Romans,  not  stoned  like 
Stephen  by  the  people,  and  thence  through  natural  combina- 
tions the  story  of  his  surrender  by  the  Jews  to  the  Romans, 
which  afterwards  became  the  account  of  how  Judas  delivered 
him  up  to  the  Jews  and  they  to  the  Romans.  But  the 
Passion  and  the  Pillars  of  Schmiedel  must  be  reserved  for 
another  discussion.  Only  be  it  remarked  here  as  elsewhere 
(Preface)  that  the  apparently  earliest  Gospel-source  Q,  the 
** Sayings,"  as  now  recognised  by  Harnack,  stops  short  of 
the  Judaean  ministry,  which  thus  appears  to  have  been  an 
afterthought  forming  no  part  of  the  most  primitive  Gospel. 

107.  In  conclusion,  it  should  be  repeated  (as  too  liable  to 
be  forgotten)  that  in  showing  the  Jesus  of  Proto-christianity 
to  have  been  a  God,  and  not  a  man,  one  by  no  means 
depreciates  the  role  or  the  importance  of  personality  in  affairs 
human,  particularly  in  the  genesis  of  Christianity.  The 
early  propagandists  were  great  men,  were  very  great  men  ; 
they  conceived  noble  and  beautiful  and  attractive  ideas,  which 
they  defended  with  curious  learning  and  logic,  and  recom- 
mended with  captivating  rhetoric  and  persuasive  oratory  and 
consuming  zeal.  '*  The  Apostle "  (Paul)  and  Apollos  and 
Peter  and  John  and  Stephen  and  Philip,  not  to  mention 
Barnabas  and  the  great  unknown  symbolist  whom  we  call 
Mark,  and  Autor  ad  Hebrceos^  and  the  learned  and  eloquent 
James,  with  other  Epistolists  and  Evangelists,  were  striking, 
powerful,  and  imposing  personalities ;  they  were  mighty 
fishers,  but  fishers  of  men.  The  first,  indeed,  looms  up 
vague  and  vast  as  the  bulk  of  "  Teneriffe  or  Atlas  unremoved  ; 
His  stature  reached  the  sky,  and  on  his  crest "  he  bore  flaming 
the  principal  mottoes  that  have  formed  thus  far  the  main 
dogmatic  content  of  Christianity,  both  militant  and  triumphant. 
No  wonder  that  Wrede  and  others  have  thought  him,  rather 
than  the  Jesus,  the  founder  of  our  religion.  If  by  the  Jesus 
he  meant  only  the  magnified  man  of  modern  criticism,  the 
comparison  is  inevitable,  and  the  judgment  of  Wrede  does 


144  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

not  seem  strange  nor  unenlightened.     But  the  Jesus  the  God 
is,  of  course,  quite  incomparable  with  Paul  the  Apostle. 

io8.  A  modern  sentimentalist  will  insist  that  grand 
ideas  can  neither  save  nor  convert  men,  whose  hearts 
must  be  touched  by  the  story  of  the  Cross,  and  the  tender 
gentleness  and  loving-kindness  of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus  ; 
and  the  missionary  confidently  hopes  to  be  able  to  render 
these  features  so  attractive  as  to  draw  all  people,  Asiatic  and 
African,  into  the  Church,  whence  they  will  issue  to  the  final 
conversion  of  the  unfeeling  European  and  American — the 
Mongolian  and  the  Hottentot  will  in  the  end  convert  us  to 
our  own  religion  ! 

109.  Such  expectants  seem  to  forget  or  ignore  many 
significant  truths — as  that  reason  is  a  topmost  flower  on  the 
tree  of  humanity  ;  that  history  presents  frequent  examples  of 
suffering  and  devotion  and  self-sacrifice  perfectly  in  line  with 
the  New  Testament  narrative  ;  that  the  earliest  depiction  of 
the  Jesus  is  singularly  wanting  in  the  very  features  that  the 
sentimentalist  would  stress,  and  instead  throws  all  emphasis 
on  the  sterner  traits  of  infinite  power  and  knowledge  ;  that 
the  tenderly  human  traits  belong  to  the  later  forms  of  the 
Gospel,  and  are  sometimes  even  interpolations,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  famous  prayer  on  the  Cross  :  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for 
they  know  not  what  they  do  "  (Luke  xxiii,  34 — of  course,  it  is 
not  less  noble  and  sublime  for  being  late  "  Western  "  than  if 
it  were  early  Eastern).  They  seem  also  to  overlook  such 
characteristic  touches  as  are  found  in  Matthew  x,  14,  15,  34, 
35;  xi,  20-24;  xviii,  17  and  xxiii,  passim^  not  to  mention 
Luke  xvi,  1-9 ;  xviii,  1-6,  especially  in  comparison  with 
Matthew  vi,  7. 

no.  Such  passages  are  sore  puzzles  to  the  expositor,  who 
finds  it  almost  impossible  to  treat  them  with  perfect  fairness  ; 
but  they  do  not  bewilder  him  who  once  perceives  that  it 
was  not  the  purpose  of  any  evangelist  to  depict  a  character 
at  all)  much  less  a  perfect  character,  but  to  describe  sym- 
bolically various  aspects  of  the  progress  of  the  Jesus-cult,  and 
to  express  under  guise  of  parable  various  details  of  the  *'  new 
doctrine."  The  Synoptists  were  as  little  concerned  to  portray 
a  perfect  man  as  were  the  prophets  or  the  authors  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  their  sketches  of  Jehovah. 


ADDENDA  145 

111.  But  there  is  here  still  another  and  far  more  important 
lapse  of  memory  ;  for  such  expectants  forget  that  the  primitive 
preaching  was  addressed  to  a  highly  cultivated  hut  polytheistic  \ 
consciousness.  Here  is  the  nerve  of  the  whole  matter.  The 
message  of  earliest  Christianity  was  irresistibly  strong  and  / 
compelling,  because  it  proclaimed  monotheism  to  a  con- 
sciousness that  had  lost  faith  in  its  own  theory  and  worship 
of  polytheism,  because  it  proclaimed  '^  God-worship^^  ('*the- 
oseby  "),  the  service  of  one  and  only  one  God,  always  and 
everywhere  the  same,  to  minds  and  hearts  that  were  already 
on  the  point  of  revolt  against  the  ubiquitous  but  many- 
coloured  idolatry.  As  the  "everlasting  Gospel,"  proclaimed 
with  mighty  angelic  voice,  "  Worship  Him  that  made 
heaven  and  earth  and  sea"  {Rev.  xiv,  6,  7),  this  message 
reverberated  from  shore  to  shore  louder  than  Sinai's  thunder 
and  roused  to  life  a  waiting  world  already  tossing  and 
restless  in  slumber ;  no  other  conceivable  message  at  that 
time  and  place  could  have  wrought  such  a  marvel  ;  the 
preaching  of  the  Jesus  of  modern  criticism,  of  a  wise  and 
amiable  Jewish  rabbi,  as  the  God  and  Saviour  of  an  idolatrous 
world,  would  have  been  justly  derided  as  puerile  and 
ridiculous. 

112.  Lastly,  does  someone  find  it  hard  to  breathe  in  such 
a  rarefied  atmosphere  of  symbolism,  and  hard  to  believe  that 
the  first  Scripturists  would  voluntarily  choose  to  express 
themselves  in  such  fashion  ?  Let  such  an  one  consider  that 
for  this  reason  or  for  that  the  Maschal  (symbol,  simile, 
parable)  was  then  unquestionably  a  favourite  in  the  highest 
degree,^  that  a  large  portion  of  the  Gospels  consists  of  such 
avowed  metaphors^  and  that  it  is  expressly  said  by  Mark : 
**  Without  a  parable  spake  He  not  unto  them."  How  deeply 
the  mind  of  the  Scripturist  was  tinged  with  this  habit  of 
symbolism  may  be  inferred  from  the  story  of  Sarah  and 
Hagar  and  Ishmael,  which  seems  to  us  to  be  as  plainly,  j^ 
simply,  and  unequivocally  historical  as  anything  in  literature.  H 
Yet  says  the  apostle  :  "  Which  things  are  allegorical "  /( 
(Gal.  iv,  24).  If  the  principal  author  of  the  New  Testament 
interpreted  such  an  unvarnished  biographical  detail  as  an 

^  See  the  footnote  to  sec.  58,  p.  115. 


146 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


elaborate  allegory,  are  we  wrong  in  still  further  widening 
the  circle  of  symbolical  interpretation  in  the  Gospels,  where, 
in  any  case,  it  must  admittedly  be  drawn  with  a  radius  so 
exceptionally  large? 


III.— THE  SO-CALLED  PAULINE  TESTIMONY 

Supplementary  to  Article  8j, 

113.  This  passage  (i  Cor.  xi,  23  ff,)  figures  so  impor- 
tantly in  the  writings  of  the  critics,  they  appeal  to  it  so 
confidently  as  the  "ground-reaching  pillar  of  the  lofty  roof" 
of  their  whole  theory  of  Proto-christianity  as  emanating  from 
the  man  Jesus,  that  it  may  be  well  once  for  all  to  examine  it 
minutely.  In  order  to  do  this,  we  must  unite  in  one  view  the 
four  accounts  found  in  our  New  Testament,  which  accordingly 
are  here  presented  in  parallel  columns,  and  the  Synoptics  in 
the  oldest  (Syriac)  form,  as  translated  by  Burkitt  (Ev,  Da-M., 
I.,  231,  157,  397):— 


Mark  xiv,  22-25. — And  while  they 
were  eating  bread  he  blessed,  and 
brake  and  gave  to  his  disciples, 
and  said  to  them :  "  Take,  this  is 
my  body."  And  he  took  a  cup  and 
blessed,  and  gave  to  them  and  they 
drank  from  it.  And  he  said  to 
them  :  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the 
new  covenant,  that  for  many  is 
shed.  Amen,  I  say  to  you  that 
no  more  shall  I  drink  of  the  off- 
spring of  the  vine,  until  that  day 
in  which  I  shall  drink  it  with  you 
newly  in  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Luke  xxii,  17-20. — And  he  took 
bread  and  gave  thanks  over  it  and 
brake  and  gave  to  them  and  said  : 
"  This  is  my  body  that  is  for  you  ; 
so  be  doing  for  my  memory."  And 
he  took  a  cup  and  gave  thanks 
over  it  and  said  :  "  Take  this  ; 
divide  it  among  you.  I  say  to 
you    that    from    now   I    shall    not 


Matt,  xxvi,  26-29. — And  while 
they  were  eating  Jesus  took 
bread  and  blessed  God  over  it, 
and  brake  and  gave  to  his  disci- 
ples, and  saith  :  "  Take,  eat  this  is 
my  body."  And  he  took  a  cup  and 
gave  thanks  over  it,  and  gave  to 
them  and  said  :  "  Take,  drink  of  it 
all  of  you  ;  this  is  my  blood,  the 
new  covenant,  that  is  shed  for  many 
to  forgiveness  of  sins.  For  I  say  to 
you  that  I  shall  not  drink  from  now 
of  the  fruit_of  the  vine,  until  the  day 
that  I  shall  drink  it  with  you  new 
in  the  kingdom  of  my  Father." 

I  Cor.  XI,  23-27. — For  I  received 
of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I 
delivered  unto  you,  how  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  in  which 
he  was  betrayed  took  bread  ;  and 
when  he  had  given  thanks,  he 
brake  it,  and  said,  This  is  my 
body,  which  is  for  you  ;  this  do 
in   remembrance  of   me.     In    like 


ADDENDA  147 

drink  of  this   producejQf_the  vine    manner  also  the  cup,  after  supper, 
until  the  kingdom  of  God  come."        saying,     This     cup     is      the     new 

covenant  in  my  blood  :  this  do,  as 
oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance 
of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread,  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  pro- 
claim the  Lord's  death  till  he  come. 

114.  No  critical  intelligence  is  needed  to  perceive  that 
Mark  and  Matthew  are  here  practically  identical,  the  latter 
adding-  only  the  one  important  phrase  '*to  forgiveness  of 
sins."  Plainly,  also,  the  other  pair  are  very  closely,  though 
not  quite  so  closely,  related.  The  main,  the  essential, 
difference  between  the  two  couples  is  that  the  second 
declares  the  establishment  of  this  Supper  as  a  permanent 
institution  among  the  disciples  ("  do  this  in  memory  of  me  "), 
whereas  nothing  of  the  kind  is  hinted  in  the  first.  Now  this 
is  a  highly  important  addition.  If  Mark  and  Matthew  had 
known  of  any  such  institution,  at  this  critical  juncture,  of 
the  most  important  sacrament  of  the  Church,  it  is  quite 
unbelievable  that  they  would  have  passed  it  by  in  silence. 
Moreover,  Luke  is  in  general  admittedly  later  than  Mark. 
It  will  perhaps,  then,  not  be  denied  that  this  vital  moment 
(of  the  institution  of  this  permanent  sacrament)  is  a  Lucan 
accretion  to  the  older  account. 

115.  In  fact,  it  seems  very  hard,  on  reading  Mark  and 
Luke  consecutively,  not  to  recognise  that  Mark  is  more 
primitive,  that  in  Luke  the  thought  has  visibly  developed 
and  expanded  while  the  text  has  suffered  dislocation  or 
mutilation.  Now  pass  to  Corinthians.  Is  it  possible  not  to 
perceive  a  still  further  growth?  The  formula  of  institution 
is  here  repeated,  and  the  second  time  with  especial  emphasis  : 
**This  do  as  oft  as  ye  drink,  unto  my  memory."^  Also  the 
author  still  further  stresses  this  idea  by  his  own  pronounce- 
ment :  **  As  oft  therefore  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  the 
cup,  proclaim  ye  the  death  of  the  Lord,  till  he  come."  Here, 
again,  the  thought  is  measurably  advanced.     Surely  no  one 

*  This  turn  of  expression,  with  various  others,  as  "table  of  the  Lord," 
"communicants  of  the  altar,"  "  communicants  with  demons,"  was  not  original 
with  "  the  Apostle,"  but  was  known  to  the  terminology  of  the  cult-unions  long 
before  our  era.  See  Heitmueller,  Taufe  und  Ahendmahl  im  Urchristentum^ 
p.  71  (1911). 


148  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

can  marvel  at"  the  gradual  enlargement  of  dogmatic  content, 
no  one  familiar  in  the  least  with  the  history  of  dogmas.  But 
how  could  anyone  understand  the  shrinkage  of  content  from 
Corinthians  through  Luke  and  Matthew  down  finally  to 
Mark  ?  If  Corinthians  gives  the  original  form  and  sense  of 
the  incident,  then  the  same  must  have  been  known  to  Mark 
and  Matthew,  as  representing  the  earliest  traditions.  How, 
then,  shall  we  explain  their  fore-shortening,  their  omission 
of  the  very  pith  and  nerve  of  the  whole  matter?  Plainly 
nothing  but  the  most  compulsive  proof  could  justify  us  in 
dislodging  Mark-Matthew  from  their  natural  precedence 
and  yielding  the  priority  to  Luke-Corinthians.  Have 
we  any  such  compulsive  proof?  Absolutely  none  what- 
ever, •• 

ii6.  What?  Is  not  Corinthians  much  earlier  than 
Mark?  We  need  not  raise  here  the  general  Pauline 
question.  That  is  another  matter.  For  the  purposes  of  this 
argument  (and  only  for  such  purposes)  we  might  fully  grant 
that  this  epistle  as  a  whole  proceeded  from  Paul,  and  was 
earlier  than  Luke  or  even  Mark.  Such  a  concession  would 
not  for  a  moment  imply  that  this  particular  passage  was 
earlier  than  any  Synoptic,  or  that  it  proceeded  from  Paul  the 
Apostle.  For  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  the  original  New 
Testament  Scriptures  have  in  general  been  subject  to 
revision,  over-working,  and  interpolation.  Why,  then, 
should  I  Cor.  be  exempt?  Why  should  it  form  an  exception 
to  the  general  rule  ?  Even  if  there  were  no  visible  traces  of 
insertion,  no  internal  grounds  of  suspicion,  nevertheless, 
since  the  passage  presents  obviously  a  comparatively  late 
stage  of  dogmatic  evolution,  we  should  be  perfectly  justified 
in  regarding  it  as  a  late  accession  to  the  text.  However, 
there  are  very  cogent  internal  reasons  for  holding  the  verses 
to  be  a  later  incorporation  into  an  elder  text,  reasons  wholly 
independent  of  the  relation'borne  to  the  Synoptics. 

117.  For,  firstly,  these  verses  occur  in  a  region  of  inter- 
polation. This  whole  eleventh  chapter,  from  verse  2, 
is  a  standing  puzzle.  The  powerful  exegesis  of  Carl 
Holsten,  after  long  and  painful  wrestling,  is  compelled  to 
admit  that  verses  5b,  6,  10,  13,  14,  15,  are  interpolations, 
and  must  be   **  expunged,"   if   we    are    to    understand  the 


ADDENDA  149 

Apostle.  A  still  closer  study  seems  to  show  that  even 
more  extensive  expunctions  are  necessary.  But  if  these 
five  verses  must  be  elided,  what  sure  patron  protects  verses 
23-25  ? 

118.  Moreover,  it  is  hard  not  to  believe  that  a  late  con- 
sciousness is  speaking  in  verse  2.  Paul  can  scarcely  have 
reached  Corinth  before  a.d.  55  ;  he  remained  there  *'  many 
days'*  over  a  ''year  and  a  half"  (Acts  xviii,  11,  18),  which 
would  bring  his  departure  from  Ephesus  nearly  to  57.  About 
a  year  or  less  thereafter,  in  58,  he  is  supposed  to  have 
written  i  Cor.  Yet  in  this  verse  he  praises  "  you  that  ye 
hold  fast  the  traditions^  even  as  I  delivered  them  unto  you." 
Certainly  such  language  sounds  very  strange  addressed  to  a 
congregation  hardly  two  years  old.  And  what  traditions? 
Can  we  really  think  of  Paul's  own  "  insight  "  or  "  a  reve- 
lation vouchsafed  to  him  "  as  meant  by  such  "traditions"? 
Consider  also  the  astonishing  disorders  into  which  the  con- 
gregation had  fallen  in  so  short  a  time.  Consider  the  fact 
that  there  had  been  many  deaths  ("many  sleep,"  xi,  30), 
which  of  itself  seems  to  imply  necessarily  a  considerable 
lapse  of  time,  much  more  than  two  years.  In  fact,  the  whole 
atmosphere  of  the  chapter  seems  charged  with  suggestions 
of  a  long  interval,  and  not  a  mere  twelve-  or  twenty-month 
since  the  founding  of  the  church  and  the  departure  of  the 
Apostle. 

119.  More  than  this,  however.  It  is  plainly  not  the 
Lord's  Supper  proper,  but  the  common  Love-feast,  the 
Agape  (very  like  our  picnic),  that  is  contemplated  in  verses 
17-22,  33,  34.  Contending  factions  met;  it  was  ^^ not 
possible  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper''' \  some  hungered,  some 
were  drunken  ;  each  took  his  own  meal  in  advance.  "  So, 
my  Brothers,  when  ye  come  together  wait  for  one  another  " 
(33)*  Plainly  it  is  not  our  sacramental  Eucharist,  but  rather 
the  Agape,  that  is  here  in  mind.  The  two  were  closely 
related,  and  are  often  hard  to  distinguish.  But  it  is  not 
difficult  to  perceive  that  there  is  a  most  notable  confusion 
of  thought.  At  verse  23  the  key  of  the  composition  changes  ; 
it  is  not  now  the  Agape,  but  the  Eucharist. 

120.  We  hold,  then,  with  confidence  that  all  the  indicia 
point  to  the  comparatively  late  origin  of  these  famous  verses 


K 


I50  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

xi,  23-26  (as  they  now  stand). ^  Before  they  can  be  used  in 
evidence  of  the  historicity  of  the  event  in  question,  as 
witnessed  by  Paul,  there  must  be  given  some  surety  that 
they  are  not  interpolated,  that  Paul  actually  did  write  them 
as  we  now  read  them.  No  such  surety  has  ever  been  given — 
nay,  none  such  has  ever  been  seriously  attempted.  On  the 
contrary,  all  the  signs  are  against  the  Paulinity  and  against 
the  antiquity  of  the  whole  passage  in  question. 

121.  We  may  go  even  still  further.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  Mithraic  Sacrament  very  closely  resembled  the 
Christian,  so  closely  that  Justin  charges  imitation  upon  the 
wicked  demons,  who  seem  capable  de  tout:  ''Which,  indeed, 
also  in  the  mysteries  of  Mithra  the  wicked  demons  imitating, 
taught  to  be  done  ;  for  that  bread  and  a  cup  of  water  are 
placed  in  the  mystic  rites  of  him  that  is  being  initiated,  with 
certain  incantations,  either  you  know  or  you  can  learn " 
{Ap.  i.  66c).  Tertullian  bears  similar  witness  {De pr,  haer,, 
c.  40).  No  one  perhaps  will  agree  with  the  Christian 
worthies  in  their  explanation  of  the  resemblance.  In  both 
cases  the  Sacrament  is  the  expression  of  a  wide-rooted 
religious  idea. 

122.  Add  to  this  that  the  venerable  and  trustworthy 
Didache^  while  discussing  the  Eucharist  at  great  length 
(ix,  X,  xiv,  i),  knows  nothing  whatever  of  the  Gospel 
account,  nothing  whatever  of  body  and  blood,  nothing  what- 
ever of  the  Gospel  ideas.  So  important  is  this  witness  that 
it  should  be  quoted  in  full  : — 

But  concerning  the  Eucharist  thus  bless  [eucharise].  First,  con- 
cerning the  cup  :  We  bless  thee,  our  Father,  for  the  holy  vine  of 
David,  thy  child  [servant],  which  thou  madest  known  to  us  through 
Jesus  thy  child  :  to  thee  the  glory  unto  the  aeons.  Then  concerning 
the  morsel "" :  We  bless  thee,  our  Father,  for  the  life  and  knowledge 

*  In  his  Taufe  und  Abendmahl  itn  Urchristentum  (64-69)  Heitmueller  finds 
in  Paul  at  least  "  three  groups  of  conceptions  "  concerning  the  Eucharist : 
(a)  Communion  with  Christ,  i  Cor.  x,  16;  {b)  Communion  with  one  another, 
1  Cor.  X,  17  ;  (c)  Commemoration  of  Christ's  death,  i  Cor.  xi,  23  ff.  Of  these 
he  recognises  (a)  and  {b)  as  the  earlier,  "the  fundamental  view";  (c)  as  a 
"more  theologising  interpretation,"  in  which  "reflection  begins  gently" 
concerning  the  "  act  of  the  cult."  But  all  this  would  be  quite  impossible  if 
I  Cor.  xi,  22)  ff.  were  the  eldest  account  and  conception  of  the  "symbol  and 
sacrament."  Heitmueller's  view,  however  cautiously  expressed,  cannot  fail 
to  confirm  strongly  our  present  contention. 

^  KXafffxaTos. 


ADDENDA  151 

[Gnosis]  which  thou  madest  known  to  us  through  Jesus  Christ  thy 
child — to  thee  the  glory  unto  the  aeons.  As  was  this  morsel  scattered 
upon  the  mountains  and  was  assembled  [as]  one,  so  be  assembled 
thy  Church  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  into  thy  kingdom  ;  because 
thine  is  the  glory  and  the  power  through  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  aeons. 
But  let  no  one  eat  nor  drink  of  your  eucharist,  but  those  baptised 
into  name  of  the  Lord  ;  for  concerning  this  hath  spoken  the  Lord  : 
Give  not  the  holy  to  the  dogs.  And  after  being  filled  thus  bless  : 
We  bless  thee,  Father  holy,  for  thy  holy  Spirit,  whereby  thou  tentedst 
down  in  our  hearts  ;  and  for  the  Gnosis,  and  faith  and  immortality, 
which  thou  madest  known  to  us  through  Jesus  thy  child — to  thee 
the  glory  unto  the  aeons.  Thou  Master  Almighty  createdst  the 
universe  because  of  thy  name  ;  both  nurture  and  drink  thou  gavest 
the  men  for  enjoyment,  that  we  might  bless  thee  ;  but  unto  us  thou 
vouchsafedst  spiritual  nurture  and  driife  and  life  everlasting  through 
thy  child.  Before  all  we  bless  thee  that  mighty  art  thou  :  [to  thee] 
the  glory  unto  the  aeons.  Remember,  Lord,  thy  Church,  to  save  it 
from  all  evil,  and  perfect  it  in  thy  love,  etc. 

In  the  presence  of  this  extremely  ancient  Teaching  concerning 
the  Eucharist,  how  is  it  possible  for  anyone  to  maintain  that 
the  Gospel  ^tory  is  historical  and  the  Corinthian  version 
/(  primitive?  (Are  they  not  manifestly  elaborate  and  deep- 
''  I  thoughted  symbolisms  ?^  Do  they  not  bear  the  most  unim- 
peachable testimony  directly  against  the  cause  for  which 
they  are  called  into  court  ? 

123.  When  now  we  turn  to  i  Cor.  x,  14-22,  we  hear  a 
more  primitive  note  quite  in  accord  with  the  "  Teaching " 
just  quoted.  **  Wherefore,  my  beloved,  flee  from  idolatry." 
Surely  th?s  sounds  Proto-christian.  **  The  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  communion  of  the  blood  of  the 
Christ  ?  The  bread  that  we  break,  is  it  not  communion  of  the 
body  of  the  Christ?  Because  one  bread,  one  body,  we  the 
many  are,  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread."  In  the 
Teaching  the  morsel  is  the  symbol  of  the  unity  of  the 
brotherhood,  its  particles  having  been  scattered  in  divers 
grains  upon  the  mountains,  but  now  all  gathered  into  one 
loaf.  With  "the  Apostle"  the  idea  of  unity  is  the  same; 
but  it  inheres  not  in  the  loaf,  but  in  the  participation  of 
all  in  the  same  loaf.  Prefer  which  you  will.  And  what  is 
this  "body  of  the  Christ"?  The  notion  pervades  the  New- 
Testament,  but  the  passages  most  directly  in  point  are 
these  : — 


152  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

I  Cor.  xii,  27  :  '*  But  ye  are  Christ's  body,  and  severally 
members  thereof." 

Eph.  i,  23  :  "  And  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to 
the  Church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fullness  of  him  that  filleth 
the  All  in  all." 

Eph.  iv,  12  :  **  Unto  edification  of  the  body  of  the  Christ " 
(the  Church). 

Eph.  V,  30  :  '*  Because  we  are  members  of  his  body." 

Eph.  V,  23 :  "  Himself  Saviour  of  the  body "  (the 
Church). 

Col.  i,  19  :  "  And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church." 

Col.  ii,  17  :  "  Which  is  shadow  of  the  things  to  come,  but 
the  body  is  the  Christ's." 

Col.  ii,  19 :  "  Nor  holding  fast  the  Head,  from  whom  all 
the  body increases  (with)  the  increase  of  God." 

124.  Here  the  conception  of  the  Church  (or  congregation) 
as  the  body  of  Christ  is  quite  too  clear  for  argument.  The 
communion  of  the  loaf  symbolised  in  one  way  or  another 
the  organic  unity  of  the  many  members.  As  there  was  one 
body,  so  also  there  was  one  spirit  ("  One  body  and  one 
spirit,"  Eph.  iv,  4)  ;  and  of  this  the  chosen  and  fitting 
symbol  was  wine,  which  inevitably  suggested  blood,  even  as 
it  is  written  :  **Only  flesh  with  its  soul  [nephesh],  its  blood, 
shall  ye  not  eat"  (Gen.  ix,  4;  cf.  Lev.  xvii,  11,  14;  Deut. 
xii,  23).  That  such  was  the  original  idea  there  seems  to  be 
not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt.  How  easily  it  might  give  rise  to 
a  story  such  as  we  find  in  Mark,  and  how  naturally  this 
might  develop  into  the  Lucan  and  Corinthian  accounts,  and 
thence  into  the  tremendous  medieval  dogma,  must  be  clear 
to  every  student  of  history  and  psychology.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  quite  incredible  that  anyone  knowing  or  having 
been  taught  the  awful  origin  and  import  of  the  Last  Supper, 
as  given  in  i  Cor.  xi,  23-26,  or  even  in  Mark,  should  ever 
speak  of  it  in  the  terms  used  in  i  Cor.  x,  16,  17,  and  in  the 
**  Teaching."  Herewith,  then,  the  guns  of  this  boasted 
battery  are  not  only  captured  ;  they  are  turned  destructively 
upon  the  critics  that  trained  them.  The  simple  primitive 
and  long-cherished  conception  of  the  Eucharist  not  only  does 
not  prove  the  historicity  of  the  Last  Supper,  but  it  does  prove 
decisively  the  non-historicity  and  purely  symbolic  content  of 


ADDENDA  153 

the  incident  in  question.  Since,  as  Heitmueller  has  just 
declared,  the  passage  (i  Cor.  xi,  22  ^.)  is  a  "theologising 
interpretation"  (of  the  "fundamental  conception  "  in  i  Cor. 
X,  16,  17),  then  assuredly  it  is  not  an  historical  narra- 
tive. 

125.  It  remains  to  consider  the  famous  passage  in  i  Cor. 
XV,  i-ii.  Into  the  grammatical  and  textual  difficulties  that 
herein  so  abound  we  need  not  enter ;  certain  general  reflec- 
tions may  suffice.  First,  then,  it  seems  very  strange  that 
such  a  chapter  should  be  written  to  a  congregation  very 
recently  founded  by  the  writer,  from  which  he  had  been 
absent  about  a  year  or  two,  to  which  he  was  expecting  soon 
to  return.  That  such  controversies  should  have  sprung  up 
almost  instantly  upon  his  departure,  that  they  should  have 
been  reported  to  Paul,  that  he  should  try  to  settle  them  at  a 
distance  by  such  argumentation,  seems  queerer  and  queerer 
the  more  one  ponders  it.  Moreover,  the  tone  of  the  opening 
verses  is  not  at  all  what  we  should  expect  under  the  circum- 
stances :  "  Now,  I  make  known  to  you,  brethren,  the  gospel 
which  I  preached  unto  you,  which  also  ye  received,  wherein 
also  ye  stand,  by  which  also  ye  are  saved,  with  what  word  I 
preached  it  unto  you,  if  ye  hold  it  fast,  except  ye  believed  in 
vain."  Surely  this  extreme  formality  is  most  unnatural. 
Would  Paul  **  make  known  "  to  them  by  letter  the  gospel  he 
had  been  preaching  to  them  nearly  two  years  ?  Would  he 
have  reserved  such  an  all-important  matter  for  the  next  to 
the  last  heading  in  his  letter?  Would  he  have  failed  to  hint 
at  it  in  the  beginning  and  body  of  his  epistle?  Would  he 
have  given  precedence  to  the  coiffures  of  the  Corinthian 
women?  Would  he  have  described  his  preaching  the  gospel 
as  handing  down  a  tradition  he  had  himself  received — he 
that  preached  from  the  inner  light  of  revelation,  and  conferred 
not  with  flesh  and  blood  ?  *'  For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of 
all  that  which  also  I  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our 
sins  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that  he  was  buried," 
etc.  We  look  in  vain  through  Acts  for  any  such  preaching 
of  any  apostle,  and  quite  as  vainly  for  any  such  attitude  of 
Paul  handing  down  a  tradition  received  from  others.  It 
seems  hard  to  blink  the  fact  that  the  Epistolist  is  rather  far 
down  the  stream  of  tradition,  that  he  is  addressing  a  long- 


154  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

established  Christian  community,  and  that  he  makes  little 
pretence  to  first-hand  authority. 

126.  Such  scruples  are  nowise  allayed  by  minuter  inspec- 
tion of  this  **  Gospel,"  which  consists  essentially  of  a  chrono- 
logical grouping  of  appearances  of  the  Risen  Christ.  Mark 
well  that  it  is  Christ  or  the  Christ  throughout,  thirteen  times, 
only  in  verse  31  is  it  ''  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,"  and  in  verse  57 
"our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  never  Jesus.  This  seems  far  away 
from  the  "Jesus  and  Anastasis  "  which  he  had  just  preached 
on  Mars'  Hill  and  from  the  spirit  of  the  proclamation  in  Acts. 
It  seems  to  represent  a  Judaic  standpoint  distant  from  any 
found  in  the  Gospels,  and  apparently  measurably  later. 
Observe  also  the  careful  ordering  of  the  appearances.  Can 
we  ascribe  the  like  to  Paul  ?  Does  it  not  represent  a  stage 
of  historisation  (or  tradition,  if  you  will)  distinctly  later  than 
the  Synoptic,  reminding  us  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  (xxi,  14), 
and  the  Marcan  appendix  (xvi,  9,  12,  14)?  Note,  further, 
that  the  phrase  The  Ektroma^  used  as  needing  no  explana- 
tion, implies  a  well-developed  Gnostic  consciousness,  and  on 
this  point  see  infra, 

127.  Looking  at  the  whole  body  of  indicia,  we  cannot 
find  one  that  points  to  Pauline  or  to  early  authorship.  We 
find  many  that  point  away  from  both.  But  even  supposing 
that  all  these  tokens,  by  which  we  are  here  dealing  with  an 
appendix  to  Corinthians,  were  misleading,  and  that  the 
paragraph  really  proceeded  from  the  Apostle,  what  of  it? 
Would  it  firmly  establish  the  Gospel  record  as  history? 
Would  it  even  show  clearly  that  the  Epistolist  was  himself 
writing  history?  By  no  means!  For  be  it  noted  that  the 
Death  was  "according  to  the  Scriptures,"  that  the  Resurrec- 
tion also  was  "according  to  the  Scriptures."  The  reader 
need  not  be  taught  that  this  phrase,  equivalent  to  "that  it 
might  be  fulfilled,"  characterises  the  Justinian  theory  of 
history  also  expressed  in  another  appendix,  Rom.  xv,  3,  4, 
according  to  which  the  Old  Testament  was  a  perfect  mirror 
of  Christian  story,  on  looking  into  which  one  might  discover 
what  this  story  was  by  seeing  what  it  must  be,  with  little 
study  of  contemporaneous  testimony.  If  death  and  resur- 
rection had  been  found  to  be  "according  to  the  Scriptures," 
then  such  a  theorist  would  without  hesitation  affirm  them,  not 


ADDENDA  155 

indeed  as  exactly  matters  of  history,  but  at  least  as  articles 
of  faith,  as  true  in  some  super-historical  sense.  There  are 
scores  of  such  historisations  in  the  Gospels,  as  critics  almost 
unanimously  recognise.  In  order  to  bring  about  such  a 
postulated  fulfilment  of  Scripture,  Matthew  does  not  shrink 
from  seating  the  Jesus  at  the  entry  to  Jerusalem  upon  the 
ass  and  her  colt  (xxi,  5,  7).  This  impossibility  has  worried 
the  Fathers  and  critics  far  more  than  it  did  Matthew,  who 
was  intent  solely  upon  his  idea,  and  would  let  the  facts  take 
care  of  themselves.' 

When  these  things  are  said  to  have  happened  "  according 
to  the  Scriptures,"  the  reader  is  clearly  informed  that  they 
happened  in  the  aforesaid  Justinian  sense  ;  the  statement  is 
a  certificate  of  their  dogmatic  necessity,  not  of  their  historic 
actuality. 

128.  But  what  of  the  appearances,  six  in  number,  upon 
which  the  main  stress  is  laid  ?  Does  anyone  competent  to 
judge  in  such  matters  really  find  herein  any  testimony  to 
the  humanity  of  the  Jesus  ?  It  seems  hard  to  believe.  What 
is  meant  by  ** appeared"  {^(pOrj)?  In  the  case  of  Paul  we 
have  some  evidence.  Three  times  in  Acts  such  an  appear- 
ance is  described  (ix,  3-7;  xxii,  6-9;  xxvi,  12-15).  At 
midday  a  light  falls  upon  him,  it  is  not  hinted  that  he  saw 
anyone  ;  he  hears  a  voice  unheard  by  his  companions  (xxii,  9) 
calling  him  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles,  to  turn  them  "from 
the  power  of  Satan  unto  God  "  (t.e.y  from  polytheism  to  mono- 
theism). On  its  face  the  whole  account  seems  to  point  to  a 
purely  psychical  experience  :  the  light  is  the  light  of  the 
truth,  brighter  than  the  sun  at  noon  ;  the  voice  is  that  ot 
conviction  and  resolution,  heard  only  in  the  depths  of  the 
individual  soul.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  fully  confirmed 
by  various  passages  in  the  Paulines,  as  by  Galatians  i,  16,  17  : 
"  But  when  it  pleased  God to  reveal  his  Son  in  me,  that  I 


^  Zahn  and  Blass  meet  the  difficulty  boldly;  the  former  reads  **him" 
{avT6v)  instead  of  the  first  **them"  {avrdv),  and  applies  it  to  the  colt,  while 
referring- the  second  "them"  [avrCov)  to  the  garments;  the  latter  does  like- 
wise, except  that  he  more  heroically  strikes  out  the  second  "them  "  {avrCov) — 
both  missing-  the  mind  of  Matthew,  who  was  merely  bent  on  fulfilling-  literally 

the  prophecy  :  "Thy  King  cometh riding  upon  an  ass  and  upon  a  colt, 

foal  of  a  yokeling,"  and  did  not  observe  that  the  and  (T)  in   Hebrew  meant 
yea  ("  Sitting  upon  an  ass,  yea  upon  a  colt,  foal  of  she-asses  ").  Zech.  ix.  9. 


156  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

might  preach  him  among  the  Gentiles "     If  we  render 

the  Greek  by  "through  me"  instead  of  "in  me,"  the  case 
remains  as  strong.  The  revelation  is  still  a  psychic  process 
brought  about  by  psychic  means.  Similar  is  2  Cor.  iv,  6 : 
"  Seeing  it  is  God,  that  said,  Light  shall  shine  out  of  darkness, 
who  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
(Gnosis)  of  the  glory  of  God  in  person  of  Christ."  Not 
pausing  on  the  heavily  freighted  phraseology,  we  see  so 
much  clearly,  that  the  light  was  spiritual — indeed,  intellectual 
illumination. 

129.  If  such  then  was  the  "appearance"  to  Paul,  what 
right  have  we  to  suppose  that  it  was  aught  else  to  Peter  and 
to  the  rest?  None  whatever.  We  must  assume  that  the 
appearances  were  alike,  until  reason  is  shown  for  thinking 
them  different.  No  such  reason  is  even  to  be  sought  outside 
the  Gospels,  and  it  is  precisely  because  no  reason  for 
supposing  any  other  than  psychic  revelation  is  to  be  found 
in  the  Gospels  that  appeal  has  been  made  to  Corinthians. 
And  here  we  now  find  this  appeal  decidedly  rejected,  and 
the  case  referred  back  to  the  Gospels  !  The  fact  is  that  the 
so-called  Pauline  testimony  strongly  confirms  the  symbolic 
interpretation  of  the  Gospel.  The  appearance  or  revelation 
of  the  Jesus  or  Christ  or  the  Son  of  God  is  everywhere  the 
same,  and  means  primarily  the  intellectual  enlightenment 
that  attends  conversion  to  the  Jesus-Cult,  to  Monotheism,  to 
the  worship  of  the  One  God  "  in  person  of  Christ,"  and  the 
voice  is  the  angel  voice  of  right  reason,  proclaiming  the 
everlasting  Gospel,  "  fear  God  and  give  Him  glory  "  (Rev. 
xiv,  7).  As  Epicharmus  nobly  sang,  "  Reason  sees  and 
reason  hears:  All  things  else  are  deaf  and  blind."  We 
affirm,  then,  confidently,  that  the  so-called  Pauline  testimony 
at  every  point  runs  directly  against  the  current  dogma  of  the 
humanity  of  the  Jesus. 

Herewith  all  the  important  Pauline  "  proofs  "  have  been 
considered.  Various  others,  mainly  detached  phrases,  are 
indeed  sometimes  cited,  though  not  worth  citing.  Careful 
discussion  of  all,  at  request  of  a  correspondent  in  Europe, 
shows  clearly  they  have  no  significance  either  singly  or 
collectively ;  to  resort  to  them  is  to  abandon  the  battle. 
When  the  field-forces  are  routed,  the  navy  sunk,  the  forts 


ADDENDA  157 

dismantled,  the  capital  surrendered^^  a  few  desperate  fighters 
may  escape  to  the  mountains,  and  there  in  dark  caverns  and 
inaccessible  retreats  maintain  a  tedious  guerrilla  contest. 
Such  patriotic  courage  never  to  submit  or  yield  may  indeed 
be  magnificent  and  admirable — but  is  it  war? 


IV.— THE   EKTROMA 

Supplementary  to  Article  6^.  •       ^ 

130.  The  central  problem  in  Gnostic  theory  (the  doctrine 
of  the  Gnosis,  the  knowledge  of  the  One  Supreme  God)  was 
the  venerable  cosmologic-theologic  one  of  the  relation  of  the 
Creator  to  the  Creature,  of  God  to  the  Universe.  Following 
in  the  wake  of  the  old  Academy,  the  Gnostics  sought  to  fill  in 
the  whole  sphere  of  possible  being  between  the  opposite  poles 
of  pure  Deity  or  Noumenon  (Bythos)  and  Phenomenon 
(matter)  with  a  succession  of  conjugate  emanations,  projec- 
tions, or  ceons  varying  from  six  to  thirty  in  number.  Of 
these  there  was  one  set  of  twelve  (projected  by  Anthropos 
and  Ecclesia  or  Logos  and  Zoe),  of  which  the  last  pair  were 
Theletos  and  Sophia.  Of  these  two  the  latter  (said  they) 
became  possessed  of  an  overmastering  desire  to  bring  forth 
or  project  an  agon  independently  of  her  conjugate,  in  emula- 
tion of  the  primal  inconjugate  activity  of  the  central  Godhead 
(Bythos).  This  passion  (Enthymesis)  of  this  twelfth  aeon 
resulted  disastrously  ;  the  projection  or  emanation  proceeding 
from  her  was  indeed  Substance,  but  was  shapeless  and 
unordered,  as  lacking  the  masculine  form-giving  virtue,^ 
and  was  technically  and  fitly  called  The  Ektroma.^  The 
Ektroma  was  really  nothing  but  the  formless  stuff  (Hyle)  of 
Aristotle,  the  Tohu-va-Bohu  of  Genesis  i,  2,  as  is  shown  by 
the  citation  in  Hippolytus :  '*  And  this  is,  he  (the  Gnostic) 
says,  what  Moses  speaks,  the  earth  was  invisible  and 
unordered/^ 

131.  Inasmuch  as  all  the  preceding  aeons  were  not  only 

*  As  apparently  by  Heitmueller  in  the  passage  just  quoted. 
'  oifflav  Afiopipov,  o'iav  (pvaiv  elxe  di^Xeiav  reKeiv,  Iren.,  I,  i,  3. 
3  wa-irep  ^/crpw/ia,  Iren.^  I,  i,  7 ;  eiri  t^j  yeyevqiiivi^  vir  auTiys  eKxpfifiari,  oUtcj  yap 
KaXovffiv,  Hip.,  J^ejlf  vi,  31. 


158  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

substantial,  but  were  heavenly  forms,  it  was  perfectly  natural 
for  the  Gnostic  to  call  this  formless  emanation  of  Sophia 
The  Ektroma  (abortivum).  Plainly  the  notion  is  derived 
from,  or  at  least  correlated  with,  the  passage  in  Proverbs 
(viii,  12^.),  where  Hokhmah  (Wisdom)  is  so  highly  extolled 
as  having  assisted  the  Creator  at  the  founding  of  the  heavens 
and  the  earth.  This  is  doubly  evident  from  the  other  name, 
Achamoth,  which  they  gave  to  Sophia  (not  to  Enthymesis,  as 
Tertullian  thought),  which  is  manifestly  only  a  thin  disguise 
of  the  Hebrew  name  Hokhmah,  or  the  Syriac  Hekhmetha, 
though  Tertullian  declares  it  to  be  **  uninterpretable  "  (Adv. 
VaL,  xiv).  Thus  the  Ektroma  appears  as  the  last  and  least 
of  the  aeons  sent  forth,  as,  in  fact,  not  worthy  to  be  called  an 
ason,  being  defective  in  its  generation.^  In  view  of  this 
Gnostic  speculation,  and  only  in  view  of  it,  the  self- 
depreciatory  language  of  the  Apostle  now  becomes  perfectly 
clear  and  remarkably  apposite. 

132.  Of  course,  the  reply  of  the  critics  will  be,  and  must 
be,  that  the  relation  is  just  the  inverse,  that  the  Gnostics 
took  the  notion  of  the  Ektroma  from  this  passage  in 
Corinthians.  But  such  a  contention  it  is  impossible  to 
maintain.  That  such  an  obscure  and  far-fetched  phrase 
should  have  given  birth  to  the  highly  organised  and 
elaborate  Gnostic  doctrine  of  aeons  or  emanations  would 
be  as  marvellous  as  any  of  the  inconceivabilities  of  that 
doctrine  itself;  whereas  the  comparison  in  Corinthians 
appears  natural  and  almost  inevitable  when,  and  only  when, 
the  whole  Gnostic  theory  is  presupposed.  I  say  the  whole 
theory,  not,  indeed,  in  its  details  (which  varied  greatly  from 
thinker  to  thinker),  but  in  its  spirit  and  general  outline.  The 
notion  of  the  stuff  of  the  physical  or  phenomenal  world  as  an 
Ektroma,  an  imperfect  projection  of  a  spiritual  nature,  is 
a  highly  abstract  cosmologic  -  metaphysical  imagination, 
evidently  the  result  of  prolonged  and  profound  philosophic 
meditation.     It  reminds  us  forcibly  of  the  modern  doctrine 

*  This  queer  conceit,  of  the  imperfect  aeon,  was  really  a  thoroughly  honest 
attempt  to  clear  up  the  darkest  of  mysteries,  the  origin  of  evil,  by  interpreting 
this  evil  as  a  pure  negation.  This  form  of  explanation  has  exerted  a  strong 
fascination  over  the  profoundest  intellects,  and  has  been  repeatedly  revived  in 
later  times,  as  by  Spinoza.  We  may  smile  at  the  bizarre  inadequacy  of  the 
Gnostic  solution  ;  but  where  the  ancient  failed,  what  modern  has  succeeded? 


ADDENDA  159 

that  one's  physical  world  is  one's  own  ideas,  the  spatial 
construct  of  one's  psychic  experience.  Still  more,  it  is  a 
part  and  parcel  of  the  general  theory  of  successive  emissions 
or  reflections  of  the  primal  essence,  each  (pair)  a  dimmed  and 
reduced  image  of  the  preceding  ;  and  this  scheme  of  inter- 
polation goes  back  at  least  to  the  stern  and  stainless 
Xenocrates  (396-314  B.C.). 

133.  Perhaps  an  objector  may  urge  that  the  asons  (or 
emanations)  were  figments  of  the  Valentinian  fancy,  and  that 
Valentinus  belonged  to  the  second  century.  It  is  answered 
that  only  the  finer  elaborations  may  properly  be  ascribed  to 
Valentinus ;  the  bolder  conceptions  and  broader  outlines 
antedate  him  by  generations,  if  not  by  centuries.  Even  in 
the  tradition  and  polemic  of  the  Fathers  (who  were  eager  to 
bring  down  Gnosticism  to  the  very  latest  date  possible,  to 
represent  it  as  the  most  modern  innovation,  and  their  own 
orthodoxy  as  the  long-uncorrupted  ancient  truth)  the  origins 
of  Valentinianism  are  traced  back  to  Simon  Magus,  the  elder 
contemporary  of  Peter  (Acts  viii,  9,  11 — note  the  **  before- 
time"  and  ''long  time  ").  Hippolytus  {Ref,^  vi,  12,  18)  tells 
us  that  Simon  already  had  his  ceons  and  his  emanations  in 
pairs,  at  least  three  such,  some  of  whom — e.g.^  Sige  (Silence) 
and  Nus  (Reason) — agreeing  in  name,  position,  and  import- 
ance with  the  latest  Valentinian  characters ;  Enthymesis, 
also,  the  passion  of  Sophia,  whence  came  the  Ektroma,  is 
one  of  the  Simonian  aeons,  paired  with  Logismos  (Ratiocina- 
tion). Plainly,  then,  the  asonian  system  was  not  the  origina- 
tion, but  at  most  merely  the  elaboration,  of  Valentinus  ;  and 
of  this  system  Sophia  and  her  Ektroma  must  have  formed  a 
very  ancient  part ;  for  the  notion  of  the  first  and  of  her 
creative  zeal  is  given  clearly  in  Proverbs  (viii,  12  ff,)^  and  the 
second  lies  at  the  threshold  of  Scripture  (Gen.  i,  2),  in  the 
**  Earth  without  form,  and  void,"  which  was  the  first  sensible 
or  phenomenal  issue  of  the  supersensible  cosmogonic  energy. 

134.  Does  some  one  remind  us  that  Irenaeus  (I,  i,  16), 
followed  by  Epiphanius,  represents  the  heretic  as  actually 
citing  the,  Corinthian  text  (i  Cor.  xv,  8)  in  support  of  his 
own  heresy,  though  wrongly  applying  it,  and  infer  thence 
that  the  heretical  doctrine  was  derived  from  the  text?  We 
answer  that  such  an  inference  is  by  no  means  legitimate. 


i6o  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

The  Gnostic  might,  indeed,  have  used  the  passage  precisely 
as  we  have  used  it,  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  the  notion  of  the 
Ektroma — a  proof  that  both  Irenasus  and  TertuUian  would 
have  found  it  very  hard  to  rebut,  had  they  ever  attempted ; 
and  some  late  Valentinian  may  have  even  used  the  text  as 
the  Fathers  affirm,  though  little  trust  can  be  put  in  the 
accuracy  of  their  affirmations  ;  but  all  this  does  not  even  begin 
to  imply  that  the  Corinthian  verse  preceded  the  original 
Gnostic  conception. 

135.  Lastly,  it  is  plain  as  day  that  the  Apostle  speaks  of 
**  the  Ektroma  "  as  something  requiring  no  explanation^  and 
hence  familiar  to  his  readers.  It  is  certain,  then,  that  his 
language  reveals  a  Gnostic  consciousness  addressing  a  con- 
sciousness that  is  Gnostic.  This  conclusion  may  be  heavy- 
laden  with  consequences,  but  it  is  none  the  less  unavoidable. 

It  is  gratifying  to  find  the  foregoing  view  of  the  priority 
of  Gnosticism  to  Paulinism,  already  set  forth  in  Dervorchrist- 
liche  Jesus,  and  even  earlier  in  my  article  on  New  Testament 
criticism  in  The  Americana^  explicitly  affirmed  by  Reitzen- 
stein  in  his  recent  book,  Die  Hellenistischen  Mysterien- 
religionen :  "  So  out  of  this  view  even  before  Paul  there 
arose  the  pair  of  concepts,  *  pneumatic  '  and  *  psychic  ';  that 
Gnosticism  in  its  fundamental  notions  antedates  the  Apostle 
is  also  lexically  demonstrated." 


v.— THE  GOSPEL  PORTRAIT 

136.  A  great  lawyer,  in  this  case  as  good  a  judge  as  a 
great  critic,  writes  me  that  his  main  difficulty  in  accepting 
the  new  theory  lies  in  the  extremely  vivid  portraiture  in  the 
Gospels  of  a  highly  attractive  personality.  This  portrait 
seems  to  him  to  have  been  drawn  from  life,  and  impossibly 
the  product  of  a  religious  philosophising  fancy.  Other  dis- 
tinguished thinkers  have  written  me  in  similar  strain,  and 
therewith  seem  to  have  laid  bare  the  very  heart  of  the  matter 
as  it  lies  in  the  minds  of  many  highly  intelligent  laymen. 

Von  Soden  also  insists  that  the  Gospel  image  is  quite  too 
fresh,  original,  and  uninventible  to  be  intelligible  otherwise 
than    as    taken    directly    and    photographically   from    life. 


ADDENDA  i6i 

Inasmuch  as  this  contention  is  endlessly  repeated  in  the 
liberal  apologies  of  to-day,  it  would  not  be  fair  to  the  reader 
to  pass  it  by  without  careful  consideration. 

137.  An  obvious  and  sufficient  answer  would  seem  to  be  that 
if  any  Evangelist  really  aimed  to  depict  a  thoroughly  noble 
and  beautiful  personality — perfect,  indeed,  according  to  the 
Evangelist's  standard — there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  he 
might  not  have  done  so  ;  it  would  be  merely  a  question  of 
literary  skill,  and  there  is  no  ground  for  setting  any  narrow 
limits  to  the  abilities  of  the  Evangelist.  If  some  one  urges, 
however,  that  there  were  three,  and  even  four,  such  artists, 
and  that  their  agreement  is  decisive  proof  that  they  were 
drawing  from  the  same  living  model,  the  answer  is  that  in 
the  case  of  the  three  it  is  admitted  and  certain  that  none  of  the 
portraits  is  strictly  primitive,  but  that  all  are  elaborations  of 
the  same  original  or  originals  ;  whereas  the  fourth  is  con- 
fessedly so  divergent  from  the  other  three  as  to  make  even 
the  most  stout-hearted  despair  of  harmonisation. 

If,  now,  it  be  urged  that  the  perfection  of  the  character 
delineated  goes  beyond  the  power  of  any  literary  artist  and 
beyond  the  conception  of  any  philosophic  genius  of  that 
period,  the  answer  is  that  this  is  mere  assumption,  no  matter 
how  surpassing  the  perfection  in  question  be  supposed  to  be. 
The  Judaso-Greco-Roman  consciousness  was  perhaps  the 
most  intensely  religious  that  this  earth  has  ever  seen.  More- 
over, for  centuries  it  had  wrestled  with  ethical  problems  with 
energy,  persistence,  and  determination  that  command  admira- 
tion and  excite  wonder  ;  the  Sage,  the  Perfect  Man,  had 
long  been  the  object  of  its  plastic  imaginings  ;  and  immediate 
inner  communion  and  even  identification  with  God  had  long 
been  the  goal  of  the  strivings  of  many  more  or  less  exalted 
spirits.  That,  under  such  well-known  and  recognised  con- 
ditions, especially  with  the  transcendent  model  in  the  Second 
Book  of  the  Republic  in  full  view^  the  Gospel-writer  should 
have  been  able  (if  he  desired)  to  depict  a  personality  of 
altogether  surpassing  beauty,  nobility,  and  excellence,  seems 
to  afford  no  occasion  whatever  for  exclamation. 

138.  But  we  have  not  yet  touched  the  heart  of  the  matter. 
The  latent  difficulty  lies  in  a  most  erroneous  view  commonly 
entertained  of  the  century  in  question  and  the  one  immediately 

M 


i62  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

preceding.  We  are  prone  to  think  of  them  as  sunk  in 
intellectual  sloth  and  moral  turpitude ;  as  wholly  given 
up  to  the  senses,  to  degrading  lusts,  to  revolting  crimes, 
to  effeminacy,  triviality,  and  bestiality.  Now,  for  this 
view  of  the  border  centuries  there  is  no  justification. 
Undoubtedly  such  repulsive  elements  were  actually  present 
in  that  day  and  civilisation,  even  as  they  have  been  in  every 
other.  But  that  they  were  dominant,  that  they  excluded 
their  very  opposites,  is  false  and  calumnious.  Indeed,  the 
presence  of  conspicuous  vices  would  almost  imply  as  natural 
reaction  the  presence  of  almost  equally  conspicuous  virtues  ; 
and  that  such  virtues  did  indeed  abound,  that  very  high 
moral  ideals  were  frequently  set  up  and  not  infrequently 
approached,  is  the  unambiguous  witness  of  history.  The 
eloquent  indignation  of  the  satirists  attests  the  probity  as 
well  as  the  improbity  of  the  age.  No  general  inference  lies 
from  occasional  examples  of  unnatural  crimes  ;  precisely 
such  examples  come  even  now  occasionally  to  light  in  the 
highest  walks,  intellectual  and  even  official,  of  our  modern 
life.  Moreover,  that  the  heart  of  the  Roman  world  was  still 
sound  and  its  pulse  steady,  is  proved  decisively  by  the  sudden 
triumph  of  Christianity,  explain  that  triumph  as  you  may. 
The  multitudinous  converts  to  the  new  faith  were  already 
in  the  main  good  men  and  true,  whether  God-fearing  heathen 
or  Israelites  without  guile.  In  general,  it  was  their  virtue 
that  made  them  converts  rather  than  their  conversion  that 
made  them  virtuous.  They  were  already  '*  not  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  God."  Consider  the  centurion  and  the  eunuch 
and  Dorcas  and  Lydia  and  Timothy  and  the  '*  devout  women  " 
and  **  God-worshippers  "  that  throng  the  Book  of  Acts.  The 
divine  flame  of  Protochristianity  fed  upon  an  immense  mass 
of  long-prepared  and  highly  combustible  material. 

139.  Neither  was  the  age  intellectually  contemptible.  Posi- 
donius,  and  still  more  Antiochus,  were  learned  and  vigorous 
thinkers.  Only  a  little  earlier  Chrysippus  was  the  most 
prolific  and  Karneades  the  subtlest  of  all  Greek  philosophers. 
Roman  poetry  sought  not  only  to  follow  in  the  steps  of 
Homer  and  the  dramatists,  but  also  in  Horace  essayed 
ethical,  and  in  Lucretius  cosmological,  flights.  In  fact, 
philosophy,  since  Socrates  become  more  and  more  emphati- 


ADDENDA  163 

cally  ethical,  had  deeply  tinged  the  whole  current  of  human 
life  ;  and  men  of  action,  like  Brutus,  Cicero,  Cato,  Sergius 
Paulus,  and  the  Antonines,  devoted  far  more  time  to  specu- 
lative reading  and  to  converse  with  philosophers  than  does 
the  modern  member  of  Congress  or  Parliament  or  the 
Reichstag  or  the  Chambers.  In  the  first  century  Philosophy 
positively  mounted  the  imperial  throne,  and  in  the  second 
she  ruled  for  two  generations  with  splendour  and  beneficence 
scarcely  equalled  in  the  annals  of  man.  Nor  dare  we  forget 
the  great  birth  of  Neo-Platonism,  for  which  a  long  period  of 
fitting  preparation  must  have  been  necessary.  On  this  same 
point  we  cannot  dwell  longer  in  this  connection.  In  a  future 
volume  we  hope  to  return  to  the  matter,  and  to  submit  the 
conclusive  proof  in  all  desirable  detail.  Regard  it,  then,  as 
you  will,  it  seems  sufficiently  clear  that  the  border  centuries 
(150  B.C.-150  A.c.)  presented  every  conceivable  condition 
requisite  to  account  for  an  imaginative  delineation  of  virtue 
just  such  as  the  modern  reader  fancies  he  finds  photo- 
graphically reproduced  in  the  Gospels.  Even  then,  should 
we  concede  that  he  has  read  these  Scriptures  aright,  it  would 
still  be  unsettled  whether  the  character  delineated  was 
historical  or  an  ideal. 

140.  But  we  are  as  far  as  possible  from  making  any  such 
concession.  It  is  not  in  any  sense  or  measure  true  that  the 
Evangelists,  at  least  the  Synoptists,  have  sought  either  to 
reproduce  or  to  create  any  human  character  at  all,  either 
actual  or  ideal.  This  is  a  most  radical  contention,  concerning 
which,  however,  we  can  entertain  no  doubt  whatever,  and  it 
must  be  grounded  solidly  and  unshakably.  In  the  foregoing 
pages  the  minuter  philologic  proof  has  been  submitted,  and 
it  has  been  shown  that  precisely  the  terms  that  seem  to 
denote  most  distinctly  the  personal  character  of  Jesus  have 
no  personal  human  reference  at  all,  but  are  specially  selected 
to  indicate  his  divinity  and  non-humanity.  At  this  point  it 
is  now  in  place  to  indicate  certain  much  broader  facts  that 
bear  exactly  the  same  testimony. 

141.  In  the  first  place,  that  no  faithful  or  vivid  portraiture  is 
present  in  the  Gospels  is  clear  enough  from  the  fact  that  no 
human  genius  has  yet  been  able  to  say  convincingly  what 
the  character  of  Jesus  really  was.     The  various  conceptions 


i62  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

preceding.  We  are  prone  to  think  of  them  as  sunk  in 
intellectual  sloth  and  moral  turpitude ;  as  wholly  given 
up  to  the  senses,  to  degrading  lusts,  to  revolting  crimes, 
to  effeminacy,  triviality,  and  bestiality.  Now,  for  this 
view  of  the  border  centuries  there  is  no  justification. 
Undoubtedly  such  repulsive  elements  were  actually  present 
in  that  day  and  civilisation,  even  as  they  have  been  in  every 
other.  But  that  they  were  dominant,  that  they  excluded 
their  very  opposites,  is  false  and  calumnious.  Indeed,  the 
presence  of  conspicuous  vices  would  almost  imply  as  natural 
reaction  the  presence  of  almost  equally  conspicuous  virtues  ; 
and  that  such  virtues  did  indeed  abound,  that  very  high 
moral  ideals  were  frequently  set  up  and  not  infrequently 
approached,  is  the  unambiguous  witness  of  history.  The 
eloquent  indignation  of  the  satirists  attests  the  probity  as 
well  as  the  improbity  of  the  age.  No  general  inference  lies 
from  occasional  examples  of  unnatural  crimes  ;  precisely 
such  examples  come  even  now  occasionally  to  light  in  the 
highest  walks,  intellectual  and  even  official,  of  our  modern 
life.  Moreover,  that  the  heart  of  the  Roman  world  was  still 
sound  and  its  pulse  steady,  is  proved  decisively  by  the  sudden 
triumph  of  Christianity,  explain  that  triumph  as  you  may. 
The  multitudinous  converts  to  the  new  faith  were  already 
in  the  main  good  men  and  true,  whether  God-fearing  heathen 
or  Israelites  without  guile.  In  general,  it  was  their  virtue 
that  made  them  converts  rather  than  their  conversion  that 
made  them  virtuous.  They  were  already  "not  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  God."  Consider  the  centurion  and  the  eunuch 
and  Dorcas  and  Lydia  and  Timothy  and  the  '*  devout  women  " 
and  "  God-worshippers  "  that  throng  the  Book  of  Acts.  The 
divine  flame  of  Protochristianity  fed  upon  an  immense  mass 
of  long-prepared  and  highly  combustible  material. 

139.  Neither  was  the  age  intellectually  contemptible.  Posi- 
donius,  and  still  more  Antiochus,  were  learned  and  vigorous 
thinkers.  Only  a  little  earlier  Chrysippus  was  the  most 
prolific  and  Karneades  the  subtlest  of  all  Greek  philosophers. 
Roman  poetry  sought  not  only  to  follow  in  the  steps  of 
Homer  and  the  dramatists,  but  also  in  Horace  essayed 
ethical,  and  in  Lucretius  cosmological,  flights.  In  fact, 
philosophy,  since  Socrates  become  more  and  more  emphati- 


ADDENDA  163 

cally  ethical,  had  deeply  tinged  the  whole  current  of  human 
life  ;  and  men  of  action,  like  Brutus,  Cicero,  Cato,  Sergius 
Paulus,  and  the  Antonines,  devoted  far  more  time  to  specu- 
lative reading  and  to  converse  with  philosophers  than  does 
the  modern  member  of  Congress  or  Parliament  or  the 
Reichstag  or  the  Chambers.  In  the  first  century  Philosophy 
positively  mounted  the  imperial  throne,  and  in  the  second 
she  ruled  for  two  generations  with  splendour  and  beneficence 
scarcely  equalled  in  the  annals  of  man.  Nor  dare  we  forget 
the  great  birth  of  Neo-Platonism,  for  which  a  long  period  of 
fitting  preparation  must  have  been  necessary.  On  this  same 
point  we  cannot  dwell  longer  in  this  connection.  In  a  future 
volume  we  hope  to  return  to  the  matter,  and  to  submit  the 
conclusive  proof  in  all  desirable  detail.  Regard  it,  then,  as 
you  will,  it  seems  sufficiently  clear  that  the  border  centuries 
(150  B.C.-150  A.c.)  presented  every  conceivable  condition 
requisite  to  account  for  an  imaginative  delineation  of  virtue 
just  such  as  the  modern  reader  fancies  he  finds  photo- 
graphically reproduced  in  the  Gospels.  Even  then,  should 
we  concede  that  he  has  read  these  Scriptures  aright,  it  would 
still  be  unsettled  whether  the  character  delineated  was 
historical  or  an  ideal. 

140.  But  we  are  as  far  as  possible  from  making  any  such 
concession.  It  is  not  in  any  sense  or  measure  true  that  the 
Evangelists,  at  least  the  Synoptists,  have  sought  either  to 
reproduce  or  to  create  any  human  character  at  all,  either 
actual  or  ideal.  This  is  a  most  radical  contention,  concerning 
which,  however,  we  can  entertain  no  doubt  whatever,  and  it 
must  be  grounded  solidly  and  unshakably.  In  the  foregoing 
pages  the  minuter  philologic  proof  has  been  submitted,  and 
it  has  been  shown  that  precisely  the  terms  that  seem  to 
denote  most  distinctly  the  personal  character  of  Jesus  have 
no  personal  human  reference  at  all,  but  are  specially  selected 
to  indicate  his  divinity  and  non-humanity.  At  this  point  it 
is  now  in  place  to  indicate  certain  much  broader  facts  that 
bear  exactly  the  same  testimony. 

141.  In  the  first  place,  that  no  faithful  or  vivid  portraiture  is 
present  in  the  Gospels  is  clear  enough  from  the  fact  that  no 
human  genius  has  yet  been  able  to  say  convincingly  what 
the  character  of  Jesus  really  was.     The  various  conceptions 


i66  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

that  anyone  with  literary  feeling  should  stumble  at  these 
rhythmical,  almost  metrical,  verses.  In  the  mouth  of  a  human 
Jesus  at  any  time  of  his  supposed  ministry  they  are  simply 
meaningless  and  impossible.  Let  anyone  try  to  imagine  the 
benevolent  rabbi  uttering  such  words,  and  he  will  perceive  the 
incongruity  straightway.  We  have  long  since  ascribed  to 
them  a  purely  dogmatic  content,  and  hence  feel  no  difficulty  ; 
but  such  a  sense  could  not  have  been  understood,  nor  intended, 
at  the  supposed  time  of  utterance.  None  the  less,  the  quota- 
tion is  not  only  beautiful,  but  is  perfectly  intelligible.  It  is 
the  voice  of  Wisdom  that  we  hear,  the  Wisdom  already 
mentioned  just  before  (verse  19).  It  was  common  enough  to 
represent  this  Wisdom,  this  Child  of  God,  as  preaching,  as 
exhorting,  as  inviting  men  to  her  paths  of  pleasance  and 
life.  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiasticus  are  full  of  such  representa- 
tions. **  Doth  not  Wisdom  cry  ?"  '' She  uttereth  her  voice 
on  the  streets."  In  Proverbs  viii  the  divine  creative  functions 
of  this  Wisdom  are  eloquently  set  forth.  In  fact,  in  later 
Jewish  thought  she  became  a  kind  of  deity,  easily  passing 
over  into  the  Divine  Logos,  the  Son  of  God.  This  is  too 
well  known  to  call  for  either  proof  or  elaboration.  Hence  it 
is  not  at  all  strange  that  this  invitation,  along  with  the 
Doxology,  is  here  ascribed  to  the  Jesus,  a  closely  kindred 
aspect  of  one  and  the  same  God.'  Raising  no  unnecessary 
question  as  to  the  original  form  of  the  verses,  we  perceive 
clearly  that  the  passage  is  a  fragment  of  a  Gnostic  hymn 
(such  as  we  elsewhere  meet  with  in  the  New  Testament),  and 
testifies  strongly  to  the  deep  religious  feeling  that  dictated  it, 
but  not  for  an  instant  to  any  humanity  of  Jesus. 

145.  A  very  striking  proof  that  the  human  qualities  with 
which  we  deck  out  the  hero  of  the  Gospel  played  no  part  in 
the  primitive  conception  of  our  religion  is  this  noteworthy 
fact  that  we  find  no  mention  of  them,  no  allusion  to  them,  in 
the  oldest  Christian  writings.     Paul  and  Peter  and  John,  the 

*  In  fact,  the  Identification  of  the  Jesus  with  Wisdom  is  not  only  common 
enough  elsewhere,  even  frequent  in  Orig-en,  but  is  found  also  in  the  Apostle 
(i  Cor.  i,  24,  30),  and  especially  in  Luke  xi,  49,  where  the  words  of  the  Jesus 
in  Matt,  xxiii,  34,  are  ascribed  to  "the  Wisdom  of  God."  Compare  the 
commentary  of  Wellhausen  {£van.  Luc.  p.  52):  "Jesus  is  to  be  sure  the 
Achamoth  " — the  Gnostic  Sophia  (Wisdom),  which  Origen  holds  to  be  the  "  Son 
of  God,"  in  spite  of  the  feminine  gender  (6".  Cels.  v,  39). 


ADDENDA  167 

author  of  Acts,  the  early  apologists  know  practically  nothing 
of  this  character  supposed  to  be  so  vividly  set  forth  in  the 
Gospels.  Their  interest  centres  solely  in  the  divine  aspect  of 
the  Jesus,  in  the  dogmatic  purport  and  consequences  of  his 
cult  and  message.  The  modern  Christian  in  controversy 
with  a  heathen  would  certainly  have  dwelt  on  the  perfection 
of  the  man  Jesus  and  his  striking  elevation  in  character  over 
Moses  and  David  and  Elijah,  over  Socrates,  Plato,  Epami- 
nondas,  and  the  rest,  and  would  have  expatiated  on  the 
measureless  superiority  of  his  ethical  ideal  to  that  of  Zeno, 
of  Antiochus,  of  Epicurus,  of  Cato,  of  any  and  of  all  the 
worthies  of  Greek  philosophy  and  Roman  history.  Some 
such  course  of  argument  seems  unavoidable  for  anyone 
occupying  the  standpoint  of  modern  Christianity,  whether 
orthodox  or  heterodox,  whether  conservative  or  liberal.  But 
the  ancient  did  nothing  of  the  kind.  He  is  dead  silent 
precisely  where  and  when  the  modern  would  have  been 
most  strenuously  insistent  and  eloquent.  The  author  of 
Hebrews  does,  indeed,  compare  the  two  covenants,  and  is 
very  eager  to  show  the  higher  excellence  of  the  New  and  the 
incomparability  of  the  great  high-priest  Jesus.  But  it  is  with 
him  solely  a  question  of  official  dignity,  of  precedence  in  rank 
and  authority,  of  cosmical  sway  and  sovereignty — in  a  word, 
of  divine  power  and  heavenly  exaltation.  He  nowhere  insists 
upon  the  human  perfection,  the  exemplary  character,  the 
ethical  virtue  of  the  supernatural  high-priest  after  the  order 
of  Melchizedek.^  Similarly  throughout  the  long  array  of 
Old  Christian  Scriptures,  canonic  and  uncanonic.  The 
occasions  were  countless  on  which  the  writers  might 
naturally  have  expatiated  on  such  inviting  themes  ;  that 
they  did  not  do  so  is  a  demonstration  that  their  consciousness 
was  widely  different  from  the  modern.  Yet  they  had  at  least 
our  own  present  sources  in  which  to  behold  the  alleged  vivid 
portrait  of  Jesus.  That  they  practically  never  avail  them- 
selves thereof  is  proof  conclusive  that  they  did  not  recognise 
therein  the  lifelike  picture  in  question.  Hereby  they  showed 
themselves  much  more  objective  and  much  less  subjective 

^  The  allusions  to  temptation  (ii,  18  ;  iv,  15)  are  not  real  exceptions,  being 
merely  vague  and  casual,  and  with  only  dogmatic  import,  with  no  clear  refer- 
ence to  anything  historic. 


i68  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

interpreters  than  their  present-day  followers.  The  matchless 
Jesus-character  of  the  Gospels  is,  in  fact,  a  modern  invention, 
born  of  the  necessity  of  supplacing  with  something  highly 
respectable  the  genuine  evangelic  figure  of  a  God,  which 
criticism  has  striven  so  long  with  such  plausibility  and 
apparent  success  to  remove  from  the  Gospels  and  the  early 
faith.  The  earlier  (not  the  earliest)  Christian  centuries  did, 
indeed,  rejoice  in  the  idea  of  the  man  Jesus,  but  they  frankly 
created  their  hero  in  a  host  of  palpably  Active  Gospels  and 
legends  ;  unlike  the  modern,  they  did  not  find  him  already 
portrayed  with  inimitable  and  convincing  fidelity  and  power 
in  the  pages  of  the  ''Four  Biographies."  In  the  same  spirit 
they  also  invented  characters  and  lives  for  Mary  and  Joseph 
and  numerous  others.  All  such  imaginations  count  for 
nothing  in  history,  but  the  Scripture  witness  to  the  human 
personality  of  the  Jesus  is  really  much  weaker  than  its 
witness  to  any  secondary  figure,  because  it  is  not  merely 
negative,  but  very  strongly  positive  against  any  such 
personality. 

146.  In  his  eight  books  Against  Celsus  the  most  alert  mind 
of  the  early  Church,  Origen,  has  passed  the  ploughshare  of  his 
argument  over  the  whole  field  of  controversy.  He  has  anti- 
cipated in  substance  nearly  all  the  pleas  of  seventeen  centuries 
of  apology,  and  he  is  discussing  Jesus  and  the  representations 
of  the  Gospel  on  nearly  every  page.  The  acute  and  ruthless 
heathen,  who  had  so  alarmed  Ambrosius  and  stirred  him  up 
to  demand  a  word-by-word  refutation  from  Origen,  Celsus 
by  no  means  spares  the  character  of  Jesus,  but  assails  it  at 
every  point.  Origen  understood  his  logical  responsibilities 
thoroughly,  and  he  seizes  eagerly  upon  every  point  of 
argumentative  vantage.  Had  he  perceived  in  the  Gospels 
the  vivid  portrait  of  a  unique,  majestic,  and  beautiful  man, 
it  is  inconceivable  that  he  would  not  have  mentioned  it,  that 
he  would  not  have  stressed  it  with  all  emphasis.  But  he 
does  naught  of  the  kind.  He  is  unwearied  in  proofs  from 
prophecy,  to  which  he  gives  the  first  rank,  in  proofs  from 
miracles  and  from  the  amazing  triumphs  of  Christianity  ;  but 
he  never  argues  from  the  human  character  of  Jesus.  When 
Celsus  (in  the  person  of  his  imaginary  Jew)  charges  harshness 
upon  Jesus,  Origen's  answer  is  most  remarkable  :  the  Jehovah 


ADDENDA  169 

of  the  Old  Testament  was  equally  harsh  and  threatening  ! 
Here,  indeed,  he  seems  to  have  come  very  near  the  exact 
truth  in  h.\s  argumenhcm  ad  homtnem.   In  his  summary  (ii,  79) 
and  everywhere  else  the  favourite  modern  argument  from  the 
matchless  character  of  the  Gospel  hero  is  conspicuous  only 
by  its  absence.     Yet  Origen  is  greatly  concerned  to  vindicate 
in  some  way  the   humanity  of  Jesus,  which    he    evidently 
regards  as  the  Achilles'  heel  in  his  whole  system  of  doctrine. 
He  recurs  to  it  continually,  is  ever  advancing  new  forms  of 
defence  and  recommending  the  dogma  by  new  subtleties  and 
plausibilities.     That   he   never   employs  the  favourite,   yea, 
almost  the  exclusive  proof  of  the  modern  liberal,  seems  to 
show  with  all  desirable  clearness  that  for  his  mind  that  proof 
did  not  exist.     Origen  did  not  perceive  in  the  Gospel  story 
the    vivid    portrait    of    a    matchless,  unmistakably    human 
character  ;  yet  no  man  has  ever  studied  the  Scriptures  more 
deeply,  or  mastered  their  contents  more  comprehensively.     It 
seems  impossible  that  such  a  genius  of  exegesis  should  have 
failed  to  observe  what  the  modern  liberal  sees  lying  plain  as 
day  spread  out  over  the  whole  surface,  if  indeed  it  be  really 
there,  if  it  be  not  a  figment  of  modern  fancy.     The  observa- 
tions just  made  concerning  Origen  maybe  repeated  mutatis 
mutandis  of  all  the  great  scribes  of  Old  Christian  literature. 
Save  as  a  mere  dogma,  the  human  character  of  Jesus  seems 
to  form  no  appreciable  element  of  the  early  Christian  con- 
sciousness ;    and  as  a  dogma    it   is   never   defended  in   the 
modern  fashion  by  appeal  to  the  lifelike  depiction    of   the 
Gospels.     Yet  unquestionably  this  early  Christian  conscious- 
ness stood  far  closer  to  the  supposed  human   personality  in 
question  in  every  respect,   racially,  geographically,  socially, 
intellectually,  than  does   any  modern  West-European  con- 
sciousness.    Moreover,  be  it  repeated,  that  early  conscious- 
ness   (from  A.D.    100   on)   was    as    intensely    interested    in 
establishing  that  humanity  as  is  the  modern  in  Germany  or 
Britain.     There  is  then  one  and  only  one  possible  conclusion, 
the   one   already  recommended  by  numerous   and    decisive 
independent  considerations  :  The  alleged  vivid  human  por- 
traiture is  not  really  present  i7i  the  New  Testament ;  it  is  a 
reflection,  from  the  Gospel   mirror,  of  the  consciousness  of 
the    modern    Christian    reader.      As    the    ancient    believer 


I70  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

beheld  the  whole  story  of  the  Gospels,  the  whole  new 
Dispensation,  foreshadowed  in  its  minutest  details  in  the 
Old  Testament,  so  the  modern  believer  beholds  all  the 
features  of  his  Ideal  Man  delineated  in  the  evangelic  writings. 
We  know  now  that  it  was  wholly  an  illusion  in  the  first  case  ; 
we  shall  soon  recognise  that  the  illusion  is  quite  as  complete 
in  the  second. 

147.  As  a  further  and  final  general  demonstration,  we  enter 
what  might  be  called  the  topographical  argument,  hitherto 
unhinted.  It  is  simply  this  :  If  Jesus  was  a  great,  impressive, 
commanding,  human  personality,  in  terms  of  which  must 
mainly  be  understood  the  message  and  mission  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  if  his  personal  influence  and  ministry,  whether 
merely  natural,  though  wonderful,  or  supernatural,  whether 
pure-human  or  superhuman,  initiated  and  determined  that 
great  religious  movement,  then  of  necessity  would  the  region 
of  his  personal  activity,  where  he  taught  and  preached  and 
healed  and  gathered  about  him  his  first  devoted  disciples, 
have  been  the  centre  and  hearthstone  of  the  "  new  teaching," 
there  we  should  find  the  earliest  and  perhaps  strongest 
churches,  with  that  region  would  tradition  connect  the  oldest 
and  most  distinguished  disciples.  Let  no  one  cite  at  this 
point  the  saying  that  a  prophet  is  not  without  honour,  save 
in  his  own  country  and  among  his  own  people.  Even 
granted  the  truth  of  the  saying,  it  would  have  no  relevance. 
For  we  are  not  talking  about  ''  his  own  country  and  his  own 
people,"  but  about  the  chosen  region  of  his  successful 
activity  ;  not  where  he  could  do  no  mighty  work,  but  where 
he  is  reputed  to  have  done  many  and  practically  all  his 
mighty  works,  and  captivated  the  multitudes,  and  won  his 
first  and  only  faithful  following,  and  achieved  all  of  his 
personal  triumphs.  True  it  is,  if  Jesus  had  changed  the 
scene  of  his  activity,  if  he  had  gone  elsewhere  and  there 
established  a  new  school,  and  gathered  round  him  a  still 
more  numerous  and  enthusiastic  band  of  believers,  and  had 
prolonged  his  stay  in  this  new  capital  till  the  end,  then, 
indeed,  this  new  theatre  might  have  taken  the  place  of  the 
old,  and  figured  in  history  as  the  emanative  focus  of  the  new 
faith.  However,  nothing  of  the  kind  took  place,  according 
to   the  Scriptures.      The   deeds    of    might    were    confined 


ADDENDA  171 

practically  to  Galilee.  There  was  the  preaching  heard,  there 
the  healing  done,  there  were  the  demons  expelled,  there  the 
disciples  called  and  charged  and  instructed,  there  the  multi- 
tude gathered  and  cried  out  in  amazement,  "  Never  man 
spake  like  this  man."  By  all  the  laws  of  human  psychology,*! 
by  all  the  precedents  of  human  history,  this  same  rich  and  /  I 
populous  Galilee,  the  exclusive  scene  of  the  personal  ministry  ^ 
of  Jesus,  should,  and  indeed  must,  have  been  the  principal 
theatre  of  the  first  activity  of  the  Galilean  disciples  ;  there 
should  have  been  proclaimed  first  of  all  the  gospel  of  the 
resurrection,  there  wrought  the  first  miracles  of  the  new 
spirit,  there  formed  the  first  congregations,  there  established 
the  first  churches.  Thence,  in  an  ever-widening  circle,  the 
waves  of  the  gospel  mission  should  have  issued  and  spread 
themselves  all  over  the  empire.  But  what  are  the  facts  in  the 
case?  They  are  all  reversed  as  completely  as  possible! 
With  the  departure  from  Galilee  for  Jerusalem,  Galilee 
vanishes  from  the  horizon  of  the  Scriptures,  never  to  appear 
again.  The  poor  peasants  never  view  again  the  shores  of 
their  native  lake.  Never  do  they  revisit  the  scenes  made 
sacred  to  them  by  the  life  and  doctrine  of  Jesus  ;  never  do  they 
see  again  where  his  feet  trod,  where  his  voice  resounded, 
where  his  miracles  were  wrought,  where  the  peoples  thronged 
him,  where  the  waves  were  stilled  and  the  multitudes  fed  ; 
never  do  they  bear  back  word  to  their  friends,  to  their 
kinsmen,  to  those  that  believe  on  him  there.  Galilee  is 
deserted  and  forgotten  completely  and  forever  ;  no  gospel 
is  preached  there,  no  church  founded,  no  letters  addressed 
to  the  saints.  The  disciples  proclaim  their  message  in 
Jerusalem,  in  Caesarea,  in  Antioch,  in  Joppa,  in  Crete,  in 
Corinth,  in  Thessalonica,  in  Galatia,  in  Rome — yea,  every- 
where, but  not  in  the  one  place  where  of  all  places  in  the 
world  the  proclamation  would  have  been  most  natural  and 
most  effective — yea,  in  the  only  place  where  it  could  have 
been  either  natural  or  effective.  Had  the  Galilean  disciples 
proclaimed  the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Jesus  to 
Galileans  in  Galilee,  where  Jesus  had  already  laboured 
and  captivated  all  men  by  his  personality  and  marvellous 
deeds  and  doctrine,  it  is  at  least  conceivable  that  the 
preaching  might  have  found   some  acceptance   among  his 


172  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

former  admirers  and  adherents  ;  a  cult  might  possibly  have 
sprung-  up  in  such  circles.  But  for  them  to  abandon  this 
most  promising  of  all  fields  for  their  mission,  and  to  open 
their  grand  campaign  in  the  heart  of  the  enemy's  country, 
where  they  had  no  friends,  where  there  was  no  sentiment 
already  that  favoured  them  or  Jesus,  where  they  could  not 
summon  a  single  witness  in  their  own  behalf,  where  all  was 
indifference  or  positive  hostility,  where  not  a  single  favouring 
condition  was  present  and  not  a  single  unfavouring  circum- 
stance was  absent — this  would  have  been  an  absurdity  that 
no  rational  man,  no  matter  under  what  possession  or  pre- 
possession, could  have  perpetrated.  Beyond  the  shadow  of 
a  doubt,  had  Galilean  disciples  opened  this  great  campaign 
as  is  described  in  Acts  i,  ii,  it  would  have  been  said,  "These 
men  are  full  of  new  wine,"  and  that  would  have  been  the  end 
thereof.  No  person  would  have  paid  them  any  attention. 
The  author  of  John  xxi  seems  to  have  felt  the  necessity  of 
restoring  the  disciples  to  their  homes  in  Galilee,  so  he  has 
them  go  a-fishing  in  the  sea,  and  there  catch  the  miraculous 
draught  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-three  great  fishes — that  is, 
capture  the  heathen  world  in  the  unbreaking  net  of  the 
Church.  Nevertheless,  the  fact  remains  that  Galilee  cuts  no 
figure  at  all  in  the  actual  tradition  of  the  first  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  ;  and  this  fact  negatives  finally  and  forever  the  notion 
that  Galilee  was  the  scene  of  a  life  in  which  that  Gospel  was 
grounded,  from  which  it  sprung,  and  to  which  it  returned  as 
to  its  one  and  only  source  of  authority  and  inspiration. 

148.  Of  all  the  religious  movements  of  which  we  have  any 
exact  knowledge  (for  the  history  of  Mormonism  offers  no 
such  parallel),  the  recent  rise  and  career  of  Lazzarettism  in 
Tuscany  furnishes  by  far  the  closest  and  worthiest  parallel  to 
primitive  Christianity  as  conceived  by  the  liberal  critics. 
Renan,  Rassmussen,  and  Barzellotti,  among  others,  have 
perceived  and  stressed  the  remarkable  likeness,  and  have 
thought  to  find  in  the  carefully-ascertained  and  verified  facts 
of  this  recent  case  (1878)  a  thoroughly  satisfactory  commentary 
on  the  so-called  Galilean  movement  of  nearly  two  thousand 
years  ago.  Now  it  is  exactly  at  this  capital  and  vital  point 
that  the  two  stories  repel  each  other  to  opposite  poles,  that 
they  contrast  as  sharply  as  could  be  imagined.     In  the  case 


ADDENDA  173 

of  Lazzaretti  the  course  of  events  is  exactly  what  common 
sense  requires  as  natural  and  necessary,  whereas  in  the  case 
of  Jesus  and  the  Gospel  it  is  reversed  precisely  and  in  every 
particular.  For  the  minuter  particulars  the  reader  may  be 
referred  to  the  excellent  work  of  Barzellotti,  Monte  Amiata 
e  il  suo  prof  eta  (David  Lazzaretti )y  reviewed  by  me  in  the 
International  Journal  of  Ethics  (October,  191 1),  from  which 
review  it  will  suffice  to  quote  the  following  : — 

As  to  the  scientific  value  of  Barzellotti's  and  similar  works,  and 
the  importance  of  the  spirit  and  method  of  investigation  which  they 
exemplify,  we  shall  not  raise  any  question.  But  at  one  point  of  vital 
significance  we  must  register  a  wide  dissent  and  the  most  emphatic 
protest.  Even  though  one  accept  with  very  slight  reserve  the 
analysis  of  the  general  religious  consciousness  and  of  many  of  its 
most  notable  active  manifestations  in  the  genesis  of  cults  and  sects 
and  orders,  even  granted  that  the  pre-Christian  and  proto-Christian 
religious  consciousness  must  be  measured  in  some  dimensions  with 
the  one  universal  standard,  it  still  remains  true  that  the  parallel, 
whether  express  or  implied  between  the  Saint  and  the  Jesus,  is 
wholly  imaginary  and  misleading,  and  that  any  and  every  attempt 
to  interpret  the  origin  of  Christianity  in  terms  of  Lazzaretti  or 
St.  Francis,  or  any  and  all  human  personalities,  must  fail  henceforth 
as  hitherto,  flatly,  hopelessly,  and  ignomlnlously.  For  all  such  Inter- 
pretations begin  and  end  with  a  strange  neglect  of  the  central  and 
pivotal  fact  of  proto-Chrlstianlty — namely,  that  It  was  a  monotheism, 
begotten,  born,  and  reared  In  an  intensely  monotheistic  consciousness, 
directed  squarely  and  firmly  against  the  prevailing  polytheism,  which 
was  the  one  supreme  religious  fact  of  the  day,  and  of  necessity  formed 
the  point  of  attack  for  any  religious  movement  emerging  from  Greco- 
Jewish  circles.  It  Is  this  one  overshadowing  fact  that  separates  the 
Christian  and  the  Lazzaretti  movements  as  far  apart  as  the  poles, 
that  forces  them  apart  by  the  whole  sphere  of  experience.  In  the 
presence  of  this  broad  and  decisive  diversity,  the  multiplied  similari- 
ties In  detail  that  appear  in  connection  with  the  current  superficial 
and  systematically  false  Interpretation  of  the  Gospels  must  all  sink 
Into  Insignificance,  while  the  deeper  and  correcter  Interpretation 
shows  them  to  be  but  shadows,  void  of  any  substance  whatever. 
Let  one  Illustration  suffice.  The  strength  of  Lazzarettism  lay  In  the 
personality  of  David.  In  what  his  charm  consisted  it  is  superfluous 
to  Inquire.  Suffice  It  that  few  of  his  fellows  could  resist  the  spell, 
still  less  could  any  one  break  It  once  cast  upon  him.  So  far  forth  he 
was  Indeed  the  exact  counterpart  of  the  "  Jesusblld,"  as  it  flourishes 
in  the  fancy  of  liberal  critics.  But  now  mark  the  difference. 
Naturally  and  necessarily,  since  It  was  the  personal  fascination 
exerted  by  David  that  won  him  disciples,  these  latter  were  found 
from  first  to  last  In  the  circle  of  his  immediate  acquaintance.     Says 


174  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

our  author  (p.  339)  :  "  Not  everywhere  on  Mount  Amiata,  but  in 
Arcidosso  and  in  the  neighbouring  hamlets,  in  those  nearest  to 
Mount  Labbro  in  the  fields  that  face  the  Maremma,  where  the 
prophet  found  from  the  start  the  majority  of  his  followers,  there 
remain  still  faithful  nearly  all  the  survivors  of  the  societies  founded 
by  him,  his  apostles  and  some  of  the  younger  disciples,  of  those 
called  later  to  the  faith."  Beyond  this  charmed  circle  of  his  own 
personality  the  faith  of  the  Lazzaretti  has  never  extended,  and  we 
may  safely  say  can  never  extend  itself  perceptibly.  Not  only  is  this 
precisely  as  it  should  be,  it  seems  precisely  as  it  must  be.  Now  had 
the  Christian  propaganda  resembled  Lazzaretti's  in  its  origin,  had  it 
welled  out  from  a  single  pure-human  source,  as  the  critics  maintain, 
then  surely  something  similar  would  have  happened.  The  region  of 
the  personal  influence  of  Jesus,  the  fertile  and  populous  shores  of 
Galilee,  would  have  formed  the  radiant  focus  of  his  gospel  mission, 
thence  it  would  have  spread  itself  in  widening  waves,  and  always  at 
the  front  we  should  have  found  the  historic  names  of  the  immediate 
primitive  disciples.  However,  in  the  case  actually  presented  all  this 
is  exactly  reversed.  Galilee  Is  practically  unknown  in  the  early 
preaching.  The  primitive  churches  or  groups  of  disciples  spring  up 
In  remote  regions,  In  Damascus,  in  Antioch,  In  Crete,  in  Libya  ;  we 
find  Epistles  to  Corinthians,  to  Galatians,  to  Romans,  to  the 
Dispersion,  and  to  many  others,  but  none  to  the  saints  in  Caper- 
naum, or  in  Chorazin,  or  in  Bethsalda,  or  in  Nazareth,  or  even  In 
Jerusalem.  Neither  are  the  historical  primitive  propagandists  the 
friends,  fellow-citizens,  and  personal  disciples  of  the  Jesus.  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  Ananias  of  Damascus,  Apollos  of  Alexandria,  Prisca  and 
Aquila  of  Rome,  Barnabas  of  Cyprus,  Stephen  the  protomartyr, 
Philip  the  deacon,  and  various  other  missionaries — none  was  ever 
acquainted  with  a  human  Jesus.  The  twelve  Apostles  stand  forth 
but  as  shadows  of  mighty  names.  The  earliest  traditions  find 
nothing  for  them  to  do,  can  tell  nothing  of  their  activity.  This  Is 
notoriously  true  of  eleven,  and  is.  In  fact,  also  true  of  the  one 
apparent  exception,  Simon  Peter.  Thus  the  supposed  similarity 
between  the  two  origins  of  the  two  movements  turns  out  to  be  a 
dissimilarity  and  contrast  so  complete  as  of  itself  to  show  the 
impossibility  of  explaining  the  two  similarly.  Since  Lazzarettism 
was  admittedly  an  emanation  from  a  purely  human  focus,  we  have 
no  choice  but  to  admit  that  primitive  Christianity  was  not  such  an 
emanation  In  any  such  sense.  So  far,  then,  from  corroborating  and 
verislmilating  the  modern  critical  theory  of  Christian  origins,  the 
example  of  David  must  shatter  and  disprove  It  utterly.  BarzellottI 
and  his  peers  have  indeed  rendered  a  gre^  service  to  science  by 
their  Intense  study  of  this  recent  religious  phenomenon,  but  In  a 
sense  exactly  the  reverse  of  the  Intended.  They  have  builded  better 
than  they  knew. 

This  argument  seems  to  be  decisive.     The   geographic 


ADDENDA  175 

facts  of  the  first  proclamation  and  expansion  of  Christianity 
negative  conclusively  the  liberal  theory  of  the  wonderful 
Galilean  carpenter.  No  critic  thus  far  has  met  the  argument 
in  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  on  the  multifocal  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  considerations  here  adduced  strengthen  that 
argument  to  positive  irrefragable  demonstration.  What  will 
the  Liberals  do  about  it? 


PART  III. 

THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 


aiK^OLV  yap  ovtolv  (f)i\oLV  ocrtov  TrpoTLfxav  rrjv  dXyOeLav. — ARISTOTLE. 

THE  BULWARKS  OF  LIBERALISM 

I.  The  manner  in  which  the  deepest,  the  most  difficult,  and 
by  far  the  most  important  problem  of  the  New  Testament  is 
almost  uniformly  treated  by  the  most  accredited  spokesmen 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  is  cavalier  to  a  degree  that  must 
make  the  judicious  grieve.  It  is  only  with  an  impatient  air 
of  undisguised  condescension  that  they  will  deign  so  much 
as  to  admit  it  into  the  arena  of  debate,  and,  once  admitted,  it 
is  adjudicated  in  the  foregone  sense  with  a  speed,  not  to  say 
precipitation,  that  reminds  one  of  the  ad  patibulum^  ad 
patihulum  of  the  awakened  judge  in  the  good  old  days  of 
Alva.  In  the  German  edition  of  this  book  it  was  thought 
well  to  devote  some  seven  pages  to  the  complacent  arguments 
advanced  by  Renan,  Reville,  and  Keim,  before  the  historicity 
of  the  Jesus  had  really  become  a  burning  question.  Such  a 
discussion  promised  to  be  instructive,  at  least  in  showing 
how  closely  the  more  recent  had  been  compelled  to  follow 
the  elder  apologists,  how  little  real  advance  the  latest  and 
most  learned  liberalism  had  been  able  to  register.  However, 
these  pages  have  been  omitted  from  this  edition  to  make 
room  for  matters  of  graver  moment,  and  because  the  bulk  of 
the  considerations  therein  gathered  together  may  now  be 
found  in  equivalent  though  more  elaborate  forms  distributed 
at  proper  places  in  this  volume,  so  that  its  argument  in  no 
way  suffers  from  the  omission. 

2.  There  is,  however,  one  exception  to  this  rule  of  inade- 
quacy— an  exception  so  noteworthy  as  to  merit  especial  and 
minute  consideration.  Professor  Paul  Wilhelm  Schmiedel 
of    Zurich,    the    great    successor    of    the    great    Volkmar, 

177  N 


178  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

understands  the  case  perfectly,  and  in  his  most  notable  article 
on  "The  Gospels"  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica  (§§  131,  139, 
140,  141)  he  has  developed  a  real  argument  that  calls  for  the 
closest  scrutiny  along  with  unreserved  admiration.^  So 
important  is  this  formal  and  serious  attempt  to  show  the 
historicity  of  the  Jesus  that  its  basis  deserves  to  be  quoted 
in  extenso,  Schmiedel  rightly  declares  it  "  unfortunate  that 
the  decision  as  to  the  credibility  of  the  Gospel  narrative 
should  be  made  to  depend  upon  the  determination  of  a 
problem  so  difficult  and  perhaps  insoluble  as  the  synoptical 
is."  Very  true.  To  adjourn  a  problem  till  the  "  synoptic 
question  "  is  settled  is  to  adjourn  it  to  the  Greek  calends. 
But  we  must  observe  that  the  question  of  the  historicity  of 
Jesus,  as  we  conceive  it,  is  not  at  all  the  same  as  the  question 
of  "the  credibility  of  the  Gospel  narrative."  To  maintain 
that  the  Gospels  are  in  the  main  a  conscious  and  elaborate 
symbolism,  is  not  to  say  anything  against  their  credibility. 
We  may  speak  of  the  force,  the  beauty,  the  propriety  of  a 
simile  or  metaphor  or  parable,  but  never  of  its  credibility  or 
incredibility.  This  is  a  distinction  essential  to  bear  in  mind. 
To  forget  it  is  to  become  incapable  of  any  proper  apprecia- 
tion of  the  matter  in  hand. 

3.  Schmiedel  continues  :  "  The  examination  of  the  credi- 
bility must  from  the  beginning  be  set  about  from  two  opposite 
points  of  view.  On  the  one  hand,  we  must  set  on  one  side 
everything  which  for  any  reason  arising  either  from  the 
substance  or  from  considerations  of  literary  criticism  has  to 
be  regarded  as  doubtful  or  as  wrong  ;  on  the  other  hand, 
one  must  make  search  for  all  such  data  as,  from  the  nature 
of  their  contents  cannot  possibly  on  any  account  be  regarded 
as  inventions. 

4.  "  When  a  profane  historian  finds  before  him  a  historical 
>  document  which  testifies  to  the  worship  of  a  hero  unknown 

to  other  sources,  he  attaches  first  and  foremost  importance  to 
those  features  which  cannot  be  deduced  merely  from  the  fact 
of  this  worship,  and  he  does  so  on  the  simple  and  sufficient 

*  Of  course,  it  is  not  meant  that  Schmiedel's  argument  is  without  anticipa- 
tions or  parallels  of  any  kind — so  much  could  rarely  be  said  of  any  scientific 
procedure.  Nonetheless,  by  just  accentuation  and  painstaking  development 
he  has  made  it  peculiarly  his  own. 


THE  BULWARKS  OF  LIBERALISM  179 

ground  that  they  would  not  be  found  in  this  source  unless 
the  author  had  met  with  them  as  fixed  data  of  tradition.  The 
same  fundamental  principle  may  safely  be  applied  in  the 
case  of  the  Gospels,  for  they  also  are  all  of  them  written 
by  worshippers  of  Jesus.  We  now  have  accordingly  the 
advantage — which  cannot  be  appreciated  too  highly — of 
being  in  a  position  to  recognise  something  as  being  worthy 
of  belief  even  without  being  able  to  say,  or  even  being  called 
on  to  inquire,  whether  it  comes  from  original  Mark,  from 
logia,  from  oral  tradition,  or  from  any  other  quarter  that 
may  be  alleged.  The  relative  priority  becomes  a  matter  of 
indifference,  because  the  absolute  priority — that  is,  the  origin 
in  real  tradition — is  certain.  In  such  points  the  question  as 
to  credibility  becomes  independent  of  the  synoptical  question. 
Here  the  clearest  cases  are  those  in  which  only  one  evangelist, 
or  two,  have  data  of  this  class,  and  the  second,  or  third,  or 
both,  are  found  to  have  taken  occasion  to  alter  these  in  the 
interests  of  the  reverence  due  to  Jesus.  If  we  discover  any 
such  points — even  if  only  a  few — they  guarantee  not  only 
their  own  contents,  but  also  much  more.  For  in  that  case 
one  may  also  hold  as  credible  all  else  which  agrees  in 
character  with  these,  and  is  in  other  respects  not  open  to 
suspicion.  Indeed  the  thoroughly  disinterested  historian 
must  recognise  it  as  his  duty  to  investigate  the  grounds  for 
this  so  great  reverence  for  himself  which  Jesus  was  able  to 
call  forth  ;  and  he  will  then,  first  and  foremost,  find  himself 
led  to  recognise  as  true  the  two  great  facts  that  Jesus  had 
compassion  for  the  multitude  and  that  he  preached  with 
power,  not  as  the  scribes  (Matthew  ix,  36 ;  vii,  29).  Let  us, 
then,  proceed  to  test  in  the  two  ways  indicated  some  of  the 
leading  points  in  the  synoptic  gospels." 

5.  Professor  Schmiedel  now  goes  forward  with  this 
critical  testing,  and  at  first  with  only  negative  and  unfavour- 
able results  touching  the  "Chronological  framework"  (132), 
the  "  Order  of  the  narrative"  (133),  "Occasions  of  utterances 
of  Jesus"  (134),  "Places  and  persons"  (135),  "Conditions 
belonging  to  a  later  time"  (136),  "The  miracle-narratives" 
(i37)j  ''The  Resurrection  of  Jesus"  (138).  At  last,  however, 
after  this  weary  pilgrimage  through  the  desert  of  negation, 
he   reaches  the  promised  land  of  affirmation  and  certainty, 


i8o  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

and  confidently  exclaims  in  joy  :  "  139.  Absolutely  credible 
passages :  (a)  About  Jesus  in  general.  140.  (b)  On  the 
miracles  of  Jesus." 

6.  It  is  with  lively  interest  that  one  hears  this  announce- 
ment, though  the  terms  are  not  perfectly  reassuring.  It  is 
one  thing  for  a  passage  or  statement  to  be  "  absolutely 
credible,"  and  quite  another  for  it  to  compel  belief,  for  its 
contradictory  to  be  incredible.  With  regard  to  many  narra- 
tives, we  may  have  to  admit  that  they  are  ''absolutely 
credible";  there  may  be  no  reason  for  disbelieving,  and  yet 
there  may  at  the  same  time  be  no  reason  whatsoever  for 
believing  them.  Judgment  in  such  cases  would  have  to 
remain  balanced  until  some  decisive  external  consideration 
should  be  thrown  into  the  scale.  This  observation  deserves 
to  be  made  at  this  point,  because  of  its  pertinence,  not  so 
much  to  the  case  in  hand  as  to  scores  of  critical  works  that 
are  thoroughly  vitiated  by  this  fallacy  of  assuming  that,  if  a 
Gospel  incident  be  not  in  itself  nor  in  its  context  unbelievable, 
it  should  therefore  be  believed — a  principle  that  would  compel 
us  to  accept  as  history  whole  libraries  of  fictitious  literature.  Of 
course,  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  Professor  Schmiedel 
does  not  entrap  himself  in  such  a  paralogism.  In  his  article 
we  must  suppose  that  by  "absolutely  credible"  is  meant 
absolutely  coercing  belief,  compelling  acceptance  ;  in  which 
case  our  lively  interest  becomes  intense. 

7.  What,  then,  are  these  passages  of  such  transcendent 
importance?  Under  (a)  we  find  five:  (i)  Mark  x,  17  f. 
("  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  None  is  good  save  God 
only") ;  (2)  Matthew  xii,  31  /.  (that  blasphemy  against  the 
Son  of  Man  can  be  forgiven);  (3)  Mark  iii,  21  (that  his 
relations  held  him  to  be  beside  himself) ;  (4)  Mark  xiii,  32 
("  Of  that  day  and  of  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even 
the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son  but  the  Father"); 
(5)  Mark  xv,  34  ("  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me?").  Under  (b)  we  find:  (i)  Mark  viii,  12  (where  Jesus 
refuses  to  work  a  sign)  ;  (2)  Mark  vi,  5  (Jesus  able  to  do  no 
deed  of  might  in  Nazareth);  (3)  Mark  viii,  14-21  ("Take 
heed,  beware  ot  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,"  etc.);  (4) 
Matthew  xi,  5 — Luke  vii,  22  (answer  to  message  from  John 
the  Baptist). 


THE  BULWARKS  OF  LIBERALISM  i8i 

8.  Such  are  the  nine  pillars  of  the  Gospel  conceived  as 
history.  The  falcon  eye,  the  sleuth-hound  scent  of  the 
Zurich  professor  has  espied  and  detected  these  nine — no 
more.  Certainly  they  are,  in  number  at  least,  enough.  It 
is  claimed  for  them  that  they  ''  might  be  called  the  founda- 
tion-pillars for  a  truly  scientific  life  of  Jesus";  that  ''they 
prove  "  "  that  in  the  person  of  Jesus  we  have  to  do  with  a 

completely  human  being they  also  prove  that  he  really 

did  exist  [as  an  historic  man],  and  that  the  Gospels  contain 
at  least  some  absolutely  trustworthy  facts  concerning  him." 
Elsewhere,  as  in  his  luminous  Introduction  to  Arno 
Neumann's  Jesus^  the  Swiss  critic  has  expressed  himself 
even  more  unequivocally.  He  speaks  of  supplying  "the 
proof  of  the  historical  existence  of  Jesus  in  a  manner  that 
shall  be  wholly  immune  from  possibility  of  objection." 
Refuting  Robertson,  he  holds  that  the  latter  "  is  thinking 
of  texts  which  in  themselves  considered  are  equally  applicable 
to  a  demigod  and  to  a  man  ;  while  my  '  foundation  '  passages, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  appropriate  only  to  a  man,  and  could 
never  by  any  possibility  have  been  written  had  the  author 
been  thinking  of  a  demigod  "  (p.  xvii).  Most  distinctly  of 
all,  p.  xviii :  "  We  are  thus  brought  to  a  simple  question  of 
fact :  Has  the  distinctive  peculiarity  of  the  foundation-passages 
been  correctly  stated  ?  Could  worshippers  of  Jesus,  such  as 
by  universal  consent  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  were,  possibly 
have  invented  for  him  such  words  as  *  Why  callest  thou  me 

good?     None  is  good,  save  God  alone'  (Mark  x,  i8) And 

so  forth.  If  they  were  led  by  their  worship  for  Jesus  alone, 
they  could  not.  They  must,  therefore,  have  been  led  by  a 
tradition.  But,  further,  this  tradition  was  itself  really  handed 
down  by  worshippers  of  Jesus  ;  and,  accordingly,  these  texts 
cannot  have  been  invented  even  in  this  preliminary  stage  of 
Gospel  composition,  but  must  rest  upon  a  faithful  reproduc- 
tion of  facts.  Mr.  Robertson  has  not  gone  into  the  question 
whether  this  be  so  or  not." 

Lastly,  and  most  pointedly,  p.  xxi  :  ''In  reality  my 
foundation-texts  were  in  no  sense  sought  out  by  me  for  any 
purpose  whatever  ;  they  thrust  themselves  upon  me  in  virtue  of 
one  feature,  and  of  one  feature  only  :  the  impossibility  of 
their  having  been  invented,  and  their  consequent  credibility." 


i82  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

9.  Surely  the  reader  must  now  understand  clearly  this 
argumentation.  Prof.  Schmiedel  maintains  that  nine  passages 
written  and  preserved  by  the  worshippers  of  Jesus  are  so 
directly  opposed  to  their  conception  of  Jesus  as  a  being  to  be 
worshipped  that  they  could  not  have  been  invented  by  these 
worshippers  ;  hence  he  concludes  they  must  have  been  part 
of  a  tradition  concerning  the  Jesus,  in  which  tradition  he 
appeared,  not  as  a  being  to  be  worshipped,  but  as  a  man. 
This  tradition,  as  lying  behind  all  written  gospels,  we  should 
have  to  accept  as  original  and  trustworthy,  at  least  as  to  its 
central  point,  the  historic  manhood  of  Jesus. 

This  seems  to  be  an  admirable  piece  of  critical  thinking, 
and  to  deserve  the  highest  tribute  that  can  be  paid  to  contro- 
versial dialectic  —  the  tribute  of  minute,  exhaustive,  and 
impartial  examination. 

EMINUS 

10.  Before  proceeding  to  the  detailed  exploration  of  these 
pillared  bases,  it  may  be  well  to  premise  certain  general 
observations.  It  will  be  noticed,  in  the  first  place,  that  in 
this  demonstration  Prof.  Schmiedel  essays  to  show  forth  an 
impossibility.  He  maintains  that  the  Christian  authors  could 
not  possibly  of  their  own  accord  impute  certain  words  and 
deeds  to  the  Jesus,  that  the  same  must  have  been  imposed  on 
them  by  a  tradition  against  which,  indeed,  they  kicked,  but 
in  vain.  Now  an  obvious  reflection  in  the  presence  of  this 
contention  is  that  it  is  certainly  a  very  large  contract.  All 
universal  affirmatives  are  hard  to  establish — full  as  hard  all 
universal  negatives  ;  this  one  seems  particularly  inaccessible 
to  rigorous  proof.  In  order  to  see  clearly  that  no  one  wor- 
shipping Jesus  as  a  deity  could  have  attributed  to  him  such 
and  such  words  or  deeds,  one  would  have  to  make  a  pretty 
accurate  inventory  of  the  psychic  contents  of  the  nature  of 
many  thousand  Jews  and  Gentiles  during  the  border  cen- 
turies (150  A.c.  to  150  P.c).  Such  an  inventory  is  plainly 
impracticable,  and  has  never  been  attempted.  But  of  one 
thing  we  may  rest  well  assured — those  contents  were  in  any 
case  extraordinarily  varied.  To  prove  this  we  need  not  refer 
to  the  vast  library  of  the  countless  sects  that  adorn  the  pages 
of  the  early  heresiographers  and  the  historians  of  primitive 


EMINUS  183 

Christianity.  It  is  enough  to  flutter  through  the  leaves  of 
the  New  Testament,  where  there  are  not,  indeed,  just  as 
many  views  as  there  are  writers  or  writings,  but,  in  fact,  far 
more,  for  the  same  Gospel  or  Epistle  offers  often  abundant 
irreconcilable  varieties  of  teaching. 

II.   Nor  are  these  species  and  sub-species  always   close 
akin  ;  often  enough  they  seem  thrust  asunder  by  the  whole 
diameter  of  doctrine.     At  one  place  it  is  faith  without  works 
that  justifies  ;    at  another  this  same  faith  without  works   is 
dead  ;  often,  too,  the  conceptions  are  not  so  much  contra- 
dictory as  almost  entirely  unrelated,  having  apparently  little 
more  to  do  with  each  other  than  algebra  and  geometry,  or 
than  music  and  painting.     Witness  Romans  and  Hebrews, 
Galatians  and  Ephesians,   Colossians  and  the   Apocalypse, 
John  and   Mark.     It  seems  superfluously  evident  that  it  is 
with  a  most  manifold  wisdom  that  we  have  to  deal,  and  that 
it  is  altogether  vain  to  look  for  any  sort  of  consistency.     In 
such  a  heterogeneous  mass  we  may  expect  to  find  a  little  of 
almost  everything,  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  both  Scythian  and 
Greek.     If  occasionally  the   most  bizarre   imaginings  meet 
us,  as  (Hebrews  vii,  3)  of  the  historic  High-Priest  Melchizedek, 
fatherless,  motherless,  undescended  (like  a  Linn^ean  species), 
eternal ;  or  some  Stoic  dogma,  as  the  universal  conflagration 
{eKirvpdxngy  2  Peter  iii,  10) ;  or  some  Babylonian  astronomical 
conception  of  the  restoration  of  all  things  (Acts  iii,  21) ;  or 
some  Persian  fancy  of  the  accompanying  angel  or  astral  self 
(Mark  xiv,  51,  52) — none  of  such  encounters  need  move  us 
greatly.     All  of  these  things  must  come  to  pass,  but  the  end 
is  not  yet. 

12.  At  first  blush,  then,  it  seems  to  be  an  act  of  logical 
hardihood  to  declare  it  was  impossible  for  anyone  worship- 
ping Jesus  to  speak  or  write  thus  and  thus.  Verily  many 
things  were  possible  to  the  many-coloured  religious  con- 
sciousness of  that  era — many,  doubtless,  that  have  not  yet 
been  dreamed  of  in  our  philosophy.  It  is  not  easy  to  com- 
prehend our  fellows  even  in  the  present  day.  Certain  of  us 
stand  completely  nonplussed  by  the  phenomena  of  Christian 
Science  and  its  practical  deification  of  Mrs.  Eddy.  Other 
examples  hardly  less  striking  offer  themselves  in  abundance. 
How,   then,    can   we    pretend    to    fathom    or    exhaust    the 


i84  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

possibilities  of  the  Greek-Rotnan-Egyptian-Syrian-Judsean 
consciousness  of  nineteen  hundred  years  ago  ?  Most  moderns 
think  of  God  as  One,  in  whom  is  naught  but  peace — no 
strife  at  all ;  yet  even  such  a  philosopher  as  the  late  lamented 
Friedrich  Paulsen  tells  us  "  that  God's  life  is  not  without 
inner  conflicts."  If  such  a  statement  had  been  made  of 
Jesus's  life,  how  easy  to  have  inferred  that  he  could  not  have 
been  conceived  as  God  !  The  mixed  multitudes  of  Hither 
Asia  thought  endlessly  contrarious  things  of  their  deities  ; 
and  it  seems  most  hazardous  to  affirm  that  certain  "  passages 
are  appropriate  only  to  a  man,  and  could  never,  by  any 
possibility,  have  been  written  had  the  author  been  thinking 
of  a  demigod."  Strong  words  are  these  and  others  already 
quoted  ;  but  their  strength  rather  rouses  than  allays  a 
suspicion  of  their  correctness. 

13.  Even  if  we  could  not  conceive  how  they  could  have 
been  so  written,  what  would  that  prove?  That  no  one  could 
have  so  written  them  ?  By  no  means  !  But  only  that  we 
could  not  have  so  written  them.  Now,  is  the  impossible  for 
us  necessarily  impossible  also  for  the  Jew-Greek,  for  the 
Palestinian,  of  nineteen  centuries  past?  Assuredly  not. 
^^Dugleichst  dent  Geist  den  du  hegreifsf^  \  but  certainly  not 
the  religious  spirit  of  that  border-land  and  time. 

14.  Here,  then,  at  the  very  start  we  detect  a  fatal  flaw  in 
the  seductive  syllogism.  The  impossibility  so  confidently 
asserted  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  satisfactorily 
made  out.  Herewith  we  have  not  called  to  help  a  second 
observation — namely,  that  Professor  Schmiedel  has  assumed 
that  these  pillar-passages  are  primitive  and  not  later  acces- 
sions. This  assumption  would  have  to  be  vindicated  by 
careful  examination  of  each  case.  The  mere  fact  that  a 
passage  occurs  in  Mark  is  no  guarantee  of  its  primitive 
character.  Even  though  Mark  be  the  oldest  narrative,  yet 
there  is  much  reason  to  regard  the  Logia  source,  so  exten- 
sively exploited  in  Matthew,  as  still  older  ;  and  rarely  can 
one  say  with  certainty  that  a  particular  passage  is  of  primary 
and  not  of  secondary  origin.  Neither  can  one  say  with 
certainty  that  a  given  Mark-form  (just  because  it  is  in  Mark) 
must  therefore  be  older  than  the  parallel  form  in  Luke  or 
Matthew.     We  may  prefer  Mark's  form  in  general,  in  the 


EMINUS  185 

majority  of  cases,  and  yet  recognise  that  Luke's  or  Matthew's 
may  be  preferable  in  special  cases.  On  this  point  we  need 
not  dwell,  since  it  will  come  up  in  the  detailed  discussion  of 
the  various  pillars  ;  but  it  is  touched  here  because  we  hold 
that  the  original  relations  of  the  human  and  the  divine 
elements  in  the  delineation  of  the  Jesus  have  been  exactly 
reversed  in  the  minds  of  the  Higher  Critics  :  the  divine  was 
the  primitive  ;  the  human  is  the  addition  of  a  later  fancy. 

15.  Once  more,  this  Schmiedelian  argument  seems 
embarrassed  by  a  very  stubborn  difficulty  of  fact.  In  order 
to  give  force  to  the  contention  that  certain  passages  seem  to 
treat  Jesus  as  a  man,  we  must  suppose  that  these  passages 
passed  through  the  revising  hands  or  consciousness  of  such 
as  worshipped  him  not  as  a  man,  but  as  God.  Plainly, 
nothing  could  be  inferred  from  texts  that  express  the  Unit- 
arian view,  if  these  texts  came  to  us  only  through  Unitarian 
mediation.  The  whole  edge  of  Schmiedel's  reason  is  laid 
bare  in  his  own  words  :  "  This  tradition  was  itself  really 
handed  down  by  worshippers  of  Jesus";  while  these  pillar- 
passages  (as  he  holds)  were  inconsistent  with  "  their  worship 
of  Jesus."  It  is  this  supposed  inconsistency  that  seems  to 
him  to  make  it  impossible  that  they  should  have  been  inven- 
tions ;  hence,  he  concludes,  ''they  must  rest  upon  a  faithful 
reproduction  of  facts." 

16.  Let  us  look  at  this  argument  narrowly.  Note,  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  question  is  not  about  whether  such  and 
such  words  and  deeds  are  inconsistent  with  divinity,  but  only 
whether  they  appeared  inconsistent  in  the  minds  of  the  Gospel 
writers.  Of  course,  since  no  one,  neither  then  nor  now, 
knows  what  God  really  is,  no  one  knows  what  is  and  what  is 
not  incongruous  with  His  divinity.  The  most  that  anyone 
can  say  is  that  '*  such  and  such  agrees  or  does  not  agree 
with  my  conception  of  God — with  the  idea  of  Him  in  my 
mind."  Accordingly,  the  question  is :  Did  the  passages 
under  consideration  contain  elements  incongruous  with 
notions  of  divinity  entertained  by  all  the  Gospel  authors? 
We  have  already  seen  that  there  is  no  way  to  prove  the 
affirmative  conclusively ;  our  knowledge  is  not  adequate. 
Now,  however,  one  may  take  a  long  stride  forward,  and 
affirm  that  the  fact  assumed  by  Professor  Schmiedel,  that 


i86  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

these    passages   were   preserved   and    transmitted   by   these 
worshippers  of  Jesus,  is  decisive  proof  that  in  their  minds 
the    passages   were    not    inconsistent   with    the    Jesus-cult, 
were   not  inconsistent   with   divinity ;     however    they   may 
seem   to   us^   they    certainly   were    not    inconsistent    there- 
with  in  the  minds  of  the  Gospel  writers  (who  were  Jesus- 
worshippers).     And  the  reason  is  obvious.     If  the  passages 
had  been  felt  as  inconsistent  with  Jesus-worship,  with  the 
cult  of  the  Jesus  as  God,  they  would  have  been  altered,  and 
the  inconsistency  would  have  been  relieved.    This  conditional 
proposition   we  affirm  with   perfect  confidence.     The  whole 
structure  of  the  Gospels  shows  that  the  material  at  hand  or 
supplied  has  been  handled  with  the  greatest  possible  freedom. 
Of  course,  no  man  knows  this  better  than  Professor  Schmiedel. 
More  than  mere  mention  would  seem  to  be  almost  an  affront 
to  the  intelligence  of  the  reader.     Let  anyone  take  down  a 
Harmony^  of  the  Gospels,  and  consider  carefully  any  page. 
He  cannot  fail  to  perceive  that  no  language  can  exaggerate 
the  liberty  with  which  the  Evangelists  deal  with  all    their 
material,  whether  it  be  words  or  deeds  of  the  Jesus. 

17.  Consider  the  case  of  the  birth  and  compare  the  stories 
of  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  are  mutually  exclusive  in  every 
detail.  Consider  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension,  note  the 
radical  divergence  of  Luke  and  Acts  from  the  rest  in  the  all- 
important  matter  of  topography.  Behold  how  John  develops 
the  Lazarus  of  Luke  and  transforms  a  parable  into  a  history. 
Think  of  the  hopeless  diversity  of  form  and  of  content  in  the 
story  of  the  anointing  of  the  Jesus.  Compare  Matthew's 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  Luke's  Sermon  in  the  Plain.  So 
on  throughout.  It  is  plain  as  day  that  the  Gospel  writers 
have  felt  themselves  wholly  untrammelled  either  by  tradition 
or  by  precedent.  It  is  equally  plain  that  their  over-workings 
have  not  been  at  random  or  careless.  In  countless  cases  a 
motive  is  unmistakably  disclosed  ;  in  many  others,  where 
not  evident,  it  may  by  analogy  be  presumed.  The  Evangelists 
were  not  writing  for  fun,  nor  even  for  fame.  Their  object  was 
to  teach^  to  supply  their  readers  with  *'  undeceiving  milk  of 
doctrine "  that    they  might   grow    thereby    (i   Peter   ii,   2). 

'  Lucus  a  non  lucendo. 


EMINUS  187 

Their  sentences  are  surcharged  with  meaning ;  they  felt  they 
had  to  give  account  of  every  idle  word.  The  notion  that 
they  were  simple  folk,  naively  jotting  down  what  they  heard 
or  indulging  in  pleasing  reminiscences  of  good  old  days,  is 
quite  too  absurd  for  consideration/  They  had  ideas  and 
knew  excellently  well  how  to  express  them,  how  to  slur  and 
how  to  accent,  how  to  hint  guardedly  and  how  to  enforce 
with  emphasis.  A  certain  common  stock  of  sentiments  and 
conceptions  is  on  all  hands  in  evidence,  but  no  Evangelist 
hesitates  for  a  moment,  if  it  suits  his  own  purpose,  to  modify 
or  even  to  reverse  the  statement  of  any  or  all  of  the  others. 
Nor  does  he  do  this  covertly  or  in  a  corner.  He  does  it 
with  openness  and  accentuates  it  by  repetition.  Thus  the 
Synoptics  (Matthew  xxvi,  69  ;  Luke  xxii,  55,  56)  tell  us  that 
Simon  was  sitting  by  the  fire  ;  but  John  three  times  insists 
that  he  was  standing  (xviii,  16,  18,  25). 

18.  In  view  of  these  facts  we  affirm  with  all  boldness,  as 
beyond  contradiction,  that  the  tradition,  whatever  it  contained, 
whether  of  word  or  of  deed,  was  as  far  as  possible  from  being 
a  sharp-angled  crystal  or  a  fragile  vase  ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
was  malleable  as  tin,  it  was  plastic  as  wax  in  the  hands  of 
the  Evangelist.  Not  until  far  down  in  the  second  century 
was  it  labelled  "Handle  with  care."  "A  faithful  reproduc- 
tion of  facts" — such  would  have  been  accounted  the  very 
least  among  the  virtues  of  an  early  Gospel.  "The  letter 
killeth  :  it  is  the  spirit  that  makes  alive." 

19.  We  make  bold  to  repeat,  then,  that  the  very  fact  that 
a  certain  word  or  deed  is  ascribed  to  the  Jesus  by  a  Gospel 
author  is  proof  positive  that  it  was  not  in  conscious  discord 
with  that  author's  idea  of  the  Jesus  ;  nor  was  it  likely  to 
have  been  in  unconscious  discord,  for  these  Gospels  are  pre- 
eminently deliberate  compositions,  the  words  have  been  laid 
carefully  in  the  scale,  and  even  far  down  in  the  centuries  we 
find  the  manuscripts  consciously  modified  in  the  interest  of 
subtle  cogitation.  The  stricture  is  made  upon  the  great 
Vatican  MS.  B,  that  the  scribe  has  considered  too  curiously. 

20.  Well,  then  !     The  Evangelists  were  admittedly  Jesus- 

^  For  their  rhetorical  accomplishments  see  the  important  monographs  of 
D.  H.  Mueller :  Die  Bergpredigt  im  Lichte  der  Strophentheorie,  and  Das 
Johannes- Evangelimn  im  Lichte  der  Strophentheorie, 


i88  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

worshippers,  they  believed  and  earnestly  propagated  the 
doctrine  that  the  Jesus  was  divine  ;  in  their  minds,  then,  the 
passages  were  not  demonstrations  of  his  mere  humanity, 
they  were  not  pillar-proofs  **  that  the  divine  is  to  be  sought 
in  him  only  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  capable  of  being  found 
in  a  man."  Professor  Schmiedel's  notion  that  these  tell-tale 
passages  have  been  preserved  out  of  reverence  for  the  very 
words  and  very  deeds  of  the  Jesus  is  caught  out  of  the  air  ; 
it  is  contradicted  by  everything  that  we  know  of  the  composi- 
tion of  the  Gospels. 

21.  If  now  it  be  urged  that,  although  the  Gospel  writers 
themselves  might  have  felt  no  discord  between  these  **  funda- 
mental passages  "  and  the  worship  of  the  Jesus  as  a  divinity, 
and  so  might  have  preserved  the  passages,  yet  the  original 
writers,  half-a-century  older  than  the  Gospels,^  must  have 
felt  the  discord,  and  so  could  not  have  written  the  passages 
in  a  Jesus-worshipping  frame  of  mind,  but  must  have  written 
them  regarding  the  Jesus  as  human — we  answer  that  such  a 
contention  is  gratuitous  assumption.  There  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  human  nature  changes  greatly  in  fifty  years,  nor 
that  a  discord  unfelt  in  the  following  generation  would  have 
been  felt  in  the  preceding.  Since  it  was  Jesus-worshippers 
that  preserved  these  pillar-passages,  we  may  rationally 
believe  that  it  was  Jesus-worshippers  who  originally  wrote 
them. 

22.  How  easy  it  was  for  such  an  adorer  of  Jesus  as  a  God 
to  reconcile  apparent  contradictions  is  strikingly  shown  by 
an  example  that  might  well  fill  out  the  decade  of  pillar-proofs 
of  the  humanity  and  historicity  of  the  Jesus.  The  prophecies 
of  the  imminent  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  at  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  and  of  the  prodigies  on  prodigies  connected 
therewith,  none  of  which  were  verified,  would  seem  to  be  a 
crowning  demonstration  of  humanity,  and  even  widely  errant 
humanity.  Surely  one  might  reason  that  no  worshipper  of 
the  Jesus  could  have  written  such  predictions  ;  surely  they 
must  have  been  uttered  essentially  as  given,  and  preserved 
only   by  the  reverence   of  the    biographers   intent  upon   a 

*  If,  indeed,  these  pillars  do  all  belong  to  the  oldest  stratum  of  the  Gospel 
deposit— which  is  far  from  certain,  and  is  here  granted  only  provisionally,  for 
the  sake  of  argument. 


COMINUS  189 

*' faithful  reproduction  of  facts."  At  first  glance  this  seems 
to  be  plausibility  itself.  However,  it  is  nothing  more  ;  it 
is  far  from  being  fact.  On  turning  to  2  Peter  iii,  4,  8,  we 
discover  two  things  :  that  the  difficulty  was  actually  raised 
by  certain  **  scoffers,"  and  that  it  did  not  disturb  the  serenity 
of  the  epistolist.  The  discord  that  jarred  so  harshly  upon 
the  "willingly  ignorant"  his  faith  readily  resolved  into  a 
higher  concord.  By  the  simple  and  elegant  device  of 
introducing  a  constant  multiplier  (or  divisor,  as  required), 
namely,  365,000  (neglecting  some  odd  hundreds),  he  brings 
the  prophecies  into  harmony  not  only  with  experience,  but 
also  with  the  loftiest  previsions  of  stoical  speculation. 
Perhaps  someone  may  think  such  treatment  a  trifle  heroic, 
but  nay,  not  so !  It  shall  appear  as  mild  and  modest  to  a 
degree,  on  comparison  with  the  manipulations  of  modern 
exegesis  in  handling  the  exact  chronometry  of  Genesis  i, 
whereby  a  day  defined  by  one  complete  rotation  of  the  earth 
on  its  axis  ("  and  was  evening  and  was  morning,  day  one  ") 
is  expanded  into  a  geologic  age.  And  are  there  not  millions 
of  highly  enlightened  persons  who  even  now  find  the  Petrine 
reconciliation  quite  comme  il  faut? 

23.  It  seems,  then,  that  the  strong-winged  shaft  of  Swiss 
argument  has  overshot  its  mark,  because  in  aiming  no 
allowance  was  made  for  the  personal,  the  national,  the 
temporal  equation.  Professor  Schmiedel  has  not  unnatur- 
ally, but  yet  unfortunately,  judged  others  by  himself ;  he  has 
projected  his  own  highly-trained,  sequacious,  and  scientific 
modes  of  thought  across  the  sea  of  centuries  into  the  minds  of 
the  deep-musing  theosophists  who  organised  the  Christian 
system.  The  conclusions  he  has  drawn  might  possibly  hold 
for  a  consciousness  like  his  own,  but  not  for  a  consciousness 
like  theirs.  Such  is  the  result  to  which  we  are  guided  by 
general  reflections  upon  the  whole  matter  and  manner  of  this 
argument,  without  any  special  investigation  of  any  passage 
adduced. 

COMINUS 

24.  It  is  now  time  to  grapple  more  closely  with  these 
pillars  of  historic  faith.  Inasmuch  as  the  arrangement  is 
logically  quite  indifferent,  we  shall  follow  an  order  that  seems 


iQo  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

more  convenient  than  that  given  in  the  Encyclopcedta  Biblica, 
and  the  reader  will  readily  recognise  the  guiding  principle. 

Mark  iii,  21  :  "And  he  cometh  home.^  And  there  comes 
together  again  a  multitude,  so  that  they  could  not  even  eat 
bread.  And  having  heard  it,  his  friends^  went  out  to  over- 
power ^  him  ;  for  they  said  that  He  was  distraught." '^  Now 
the  idea  in  the  Encyclopcedta  seems  to  be  that  here  we  have 
preserved  a  genuine  trait;  that  the  Jesus  here  appears  as  an 
enthusiast,  whom  his  friends  held  to  be  mad  ;5  that  such  an 
incident  could  never  have  been  invented  by  a  Jesus-wor- 
shipper— hence  that  it  is  an  original,  preserved  by  the  artless 
Mark,  and  priceless  in  its  revelation.  But  notice  that  this 
construction  takes  the  Marcan  verses  precisely  at  their  face- 
value,  as  mere  biographic  notes  or  reportorial  items.  Now  I 
hold  this  whole  mode  of  interpretation  to  be  radically  and 
incurably  wrong.  It  does  the  grossest  injustice  to  the  work 
of  the  second  evangelist.  A  minute  examination  of  Mark, 
verse  by  verse,  proves  incontestably  that  the  work  is  essentially 
a  symbolism  from  beginning  to  end.  Symbolic  interpretation 
is  absolutely  demanded  in  a  host  of  important  instances  ;  it  is 
preferable  in  many  more,  and  it  is  excluded  in  none.  The 
literal  biographic  exegesis  of  these  verses  is,  then,  by  no 
means  certain  in  advance  ;  quietly  to  assume  it  is  to  assume 
nearly  everything  in  dispute. 

25.  On  careful  scrutiny,  this  prevailing  construction  ot 
the  passage  turns  out  to  be  entirely  inconstructible.  Let 
anyone  imagine  the  situation.  The  Jesus  goes  into  a  house. 
Again,  the  crowd  assembles  in  such  numbers  that  they  cannot 
so  much  as  eat  bread  !  Understood  as  history,  this  is  nothing 
less  than  puerile  absurdity.  We  may  not  be  perfectly  sure 
what  the  evangelist  means  to  say,  but  we  must  believe  that 
he  means  to  say  something  of  significance,  that  more  is  meant 

^  ets  oIkqv^  into  a  house.  '  Those  along^side  of  him,  ol  irap  avrov. 

3  Kparrja-ai.  *  i^earr),  stood  out. 

5  It  is  painful  to  read  the  attempts  of  modern  pathography  to  throw  light  on 
the  "  life  "  and  "  character  "  of  the  Jesus.  It  is  enough  to  mention  the  names 
of  Baumann,  O.  Holtzmann,  Rassmussen,  de  Loosten,  who  summon  all  sorts 
of  neuroses  to  their  aid,  and  Schaefer,  who  opposes  them  all.  But  what  else 
is  possible  than  just  such  divagations  in  the  erroneous  wood  of  liberal 
theology?  "  Che  la  diritta  via  era  smarrita."  For  the  logical  crest  unto  the 
crest,  the  perfect  flower  and  ripened  fruit  of  this  more  recent  "  eschatologie  " 
theory,  at  present  in  such  favour,  the  reader  is  commended  to  La  Folie  de 
Jhusy  which  were  more  fitly  entitled  La  Folie  de  Binet-SanglS. 


COMINUS  191 

than  meets  the  ear.  Again,  who  are  these  friends  "beside 
him"?  One  would  naturally  think  of  his  disciples  as  his 
friends  ''beside  him."  But  can  we  think  of  them  as  over- 
powering him  ?  Assuredly  not.  And  what  has  been  done  to 
indicate  or  even  suggest  the  insanity?  Certainly  nothing  in 
the  text.  Possibly  someone  might  think  the  multitudes 
insane,  if  not  able  to  eat  bread  ;  but  they  are  not  so  charged 
withal.  Notice  also  the  queer  word  aKovaavreg  (having  heard), 
used  without  any  object,  and  used  of  the  "  friends  " — as  if 
these  "  beside  him  "  were  not  near  him,  but  had  received  from 
afar  some  report  of  the  situation.  Observe  still  further  that 
there  follows  an  account  of  a  strife  over  cashing-  out  demons^ 
in  which  the  charge  is  brought  that  the  Jesus  has  a  demon, 
and  that  he  casts  out  demons  by  Beelzebul,  the  prince  of 
demons.  Finally,  note  that  the  text  is  at  this  point  peculiarly 
and  hopelessly  uncertain.  The  great  Codex  Bezce  has  the 
tempting  variant :  "  And  when  they  heard  about  him,  the 
scribes  and  the  rest  went  out  to  conquer  him,  for  they  said 
that  he  dements  them  (cglo-ra  raiavTovq).  And  the  scribes, 
those  from  Jerusalem,^  having  gone  down,  said  that  he  has 
Beelzebul,"  etc.  The  form  is,  of  course,  not  active  ;  but  the 
accusative  "them"  (avTovq^  requires  the  active  sense.  Since 
the  spelling  in  D  is  particularly  bad,  we  may  conjecture  that 
the  verb  is  misspelled  ;  the  active  form  is  implied  in  the  Latin 
translation  exentiat  {exsentiat)  in  many  MSS. 

26.  Of  course,  it  is  not  possible  to  settle  any  text-critical 
question  here  with  certainty.  But  common  sense,  which 
has  some  voice  in  such  matters  (pace  Bengel),  declares  that 
the  D-text,  while  itself  corrupt,  seems  to  have  preserved  a 
rationality  that  has  been  lost  in  the  received  form.  It  appears 
impossible  not  to  recognise  that  the  verses  20-21  are  not 
complete  in  themselves  —  that  they  merely  introduce  the 
following  sections.  The  form  "  concerning  him  "^  appears  far 
preferable  to  "  beside  him";^  and  herewith  his  "relations," 
suddenly,  dropped  down  from  the  sky,  are  evaporated  and 
return  thither.     Now,  consider  this  fundamental  fact.     The 

^  This  phrase  is  important.  It  was  not  the  scribes  in  g-eneral,  but  those 
from  Jerusalem,  from  the  centre  and  heart  of  Jewish  orthodoxy,  that  rejected 
the  new  cult,  born  in  the  Dispersion,  as  paganism  and  its  deity  as  a  heathen 
god.     Precisely  as  we  might  expect ! 

'  Trepi  avrov.  3     trap  avrov. 


192  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

demons  of  the  New  Testament  are  nothing  hut  pagan  gods ; 
casting-out  demons  is  nothing  but  converting  from  heathen 
worship  to  Jesus-worship.  "  But  what  they  sacrifice  they 
sacrifice  to  demons,  and  not  to  God,"  says  the  Apostle 
(i  Cor.  X,  20).  Justin  Martyr  too  bears  witness,  saying 
(Dial.  30  c) :  "  For  from  the  demons,  which  are  alien  from 
the  service  of  God,  which  formerly  we  worshipped,  we  pray 
God  always  to  be  preserved  through  Jesus  Christ,  that  after 
conversion  to  God  through  him  we  may  be  blameless." 
Here,  in  plain  prose,  the  adoption  of  the  Jesus-cult  converts 
from  the  worship  of  the  demons.  In  the  bold  and  splendid 
poetry  of  the  New  Testament  the  demons  are  cast  out  of 
Man  by  the  word  of  the  Jesus.  That  such  is  the  meaning  of 
the  Gospel,  it  seems,  there  cannot  be  the  shadow  of  a  doubt. 
In  the  light  of  this  fact  we  must  explore  the  meaning  of  this 
pericope.  The  multitude  throngs  the  Jesus.  What  is  it  but 
the  rush  of  the  world  towards  the  Jesus-cult  ?  But  the  scribes 
declare  that  the  Jesus  himself  hath  a  demon,  and  that  he 
casts  out  demons  by  Beelzebul,  prince  of  demons — that  is, 
they  maintain  that  the  Jesus-cult  is  itself  pagan  ;  that  it  is 
merely  supplanting  one  heathen  worship  by  another.  This 
charge  was  so  near-lying,  containing  as  it  did  a  certain 
element  of  truth,  that  it  seems  impossible  it  should  not  have 
been  made.  In  Matthew  xii,  27,  Luke  xi,  19,  we  find  the 
argumentum  ad  hominem  :  "  If  I  by  Beelzebul  cast  out  the 
demons,  by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out?"  which  may 
refer  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  did  drive  out  demons  by  prose- 
lyting, by  converting  from  idol-worship  to  the  service  of  the 
true  God.^  The  charge  that  the  Jesus-cult  was  really  idolatry 
must  have  stung  the  Christians  to  the  very  quick,  and  must 
have  been  resented  with  the  fiercest  energy.^  Hence  it  is 
here  solemnly  declared  to  be  unforgivable.  "Amen,  I  say 
unto  you  that  all  shall  be  forgiven  the  sons  of  men,  the  sins 
and  the  blasphemies  whatever  they  may  blaspheme ;  but 
whoso   shall    blaspheme    against  the   holy   spirit    has    not 

^  Hereby  it  is  not  denied  that  some  Jews  may  have  attempted  exorcism  by 
magical  means. 

2  Allusion  to  some  such  charge  seems  to  be  heard  in  the  strange  words  of 
the  Apostle  (i  Cor.  xii,  3)  :  "Wherefore  I  give  you  to  understand  that  no  one 
speaking  in  the  spirit  of  God  saith  ANATHEMA  Jesus  ;  and  no  one  can  say 
Lord  Jesus  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 


COMINUS  193 

forgiveness  unto  the  age,  but  is  guilty  of  age-lasting  sin. 
Because  they  said,  A  spirit  unclean  hath  he."  The  phrase 
"  the  holy  spirit"'  is  rare  in  Mark,  occurring  only  three  times 
— here,  xii,  36,  and  xiii,  1 1 ;  only  iii,  29,  and  xiii,  11,  are  strictly 
parallel,  and  both  seem  clearly  late  comparatively.  The 
term  "  holy  spirit "  seems  used  only  in  contrast  with  "  unclean 
spirit."  They  say  he  hath  an  unclean  spirit,  but  we  Christians 
say  he  hath  the  Holy  Spirit. 

27.  In  Matthew  xii,  32,  we  find  thestatement  that  "Whoso 
shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  Man,  it  shall  be  forgiven 
him";  and  in  Luke  xii,  10,  that  "  Everyone  who  shall  say  a 
word  at  the  Son  of  Man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him."  This 
clause  is  clearly  stamped  in  Matthew,  and  still  more  clearly 
by  its  dislocation  in  Luke,  as  a  commentator's  addition  to  the 
simpler  Marcan  original.  The  Son  of  Man  looks  here  like 
a  mere  variant  on  Mark's  ''the  sons  of  men."  As  to  the 
statement  about  not  being  able  to  eat  bread,  it  seems  to  mean 
that  the  harvest  was  great,  the  labourers  few  ;  that  the  eager 
demand  for  the  bread  of  life  (the  doctrine  of  the  Jesus)  could 
not  be  adequately  met  by  the  first  preachers,  enumerated 
immediately  before.  The  "  house  "  or  "  home  "  referred  to 
may  be  Judea.  But  on  none  of  these  minor  points  do  we 
insist.  The  main  thing  is  that  verses  20-29  form  a  whole  ; 
that  the  general  subject  is  the  thronging  towards  the  new 
cult,  which  the  Jewish  officials  admit  is  casting  out  pagan 
deities,  but  only  (say  they)  by  introducing  another  pagan 
deity  in  their  stead.  While  we  may  never  be  able  to  establish 
the  primitive  text,  we  may  be  sure  it  said  nothing  about  his 
'*  relations,"  nor  about  His  being  insane. 

28.  The  symbolic  character  of  this  whole  passage  is 
attested  by  the  symbolic  character  of  the  immediately  following 
(iii,  31-33).  Wellhausen  recognises  the  two  as  organically 
related.  The  mother  and  the  brethren  standing  without 
appear  plainly  to  be  the  Jewish  people  holding  aloof  from 
the  Jesus-cult ;  and  the  passage  would  teach  that  no  race- 
privileges  hold  in  the  new  religion,  that  all  are  on  equal 
footing,  that  all  are  one  in  Christ. 

29.  The  next  pillar-passage  has  already  been  considered  : 

*  rb  Tvevfia  t6  Hycov. 


194  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

"  Whoever  speaks  a  word  against  the  Son  of  Man,  it  shall  be 
forgiven  him  "  (Matthew  xii,  32  ;  Luke  xii,  10).  To  Pro- 
fessor Schmiedel  such  a  sentiment  seems  impossible  as  the 
invention  of  a  Jesus-worshipper.  This  may  or  may  not  be 
so  ;  but,  in  any  case,  what  of  it?  Does  Professor  Schmiedel 
really  think  that  Jesus  uttered  such  words? — that  the  Jesus 
called  himself  the  Son  of  Man?  Surely  not.  It  was  recog- 
nised as  early  as  1569  by  Gilbert  Genebrand  that  "Son  of 
Man"  here  means  only  "man,"  as  commonly  in  Syriac. 
Grotius,  followed  by  Botten  in  1792,  attained  the  same 
position.  More  recently  the  learned  Orientalists  Meyer 
(1896)  and  Schmidt  (1906)  have  powerfully  maintained  it. 
Holtzmann  thinks  that  the  "  reference  to  the  Son  of  Man  has 
been  spun  out  of  the  reference  to  the  sons  of  men  in  the 
fundamental  passage  Mark  iii,  28,"  as  Pfleiderer  had  already 
declared  in  a  footnote  {Das  Urchristentum^  p.  376).  Well- 
hausen  {Ev,  Marci,  p.  62)  regards  Matthew  xii,  31-32,  as  a 
conflation  of  Mark  iii,  28,  and  Luke  xii,  10  (the  Q-source) — 
"variants  of  one  and  the  same  saying."  The  priority  he 
assigns  to  Mark,  holding  that  in  Q  the  Messias  is  meant, 
but  in  Mark  men  in  general — man.  He  thinks  it  probable 
that  Q  found  "son  of  man"  instead  of  "sons  of  men"  in 
Mark  iii,  28,  and  misunderstood  the  singular,  which  really 
meant  man — a  singular  that  was  later  changed  to  the  present 
plural.  In  his  Skizzen  und  Vorarheiten^  vi,  p.  204,  Well- 
hausen,  following  a  hint  of  Marcion,  suggests  that  the 
original  reading  was  :  "  Whatever  is  said  by  man." 

30.  We  are  not  called  on  to  pronounce  positively  in  such 
a  case.  It  is  enough  that  the  pillar-passage  is  admittedly 
late — how  late  no  man  can  say  ;  that  it  forms  no  part  of  the 
earliest  Gospel,  that  its  reference  is  very  uncertain,  that  its 
text  is  far  from  sure.  Such  a  pillar  is  too  frail  to  bear  the 
least  weight  of  inference,  and  is  worthless  for  the  contention 
it  is  intended  to  sustain. 

31.  Mark  x,  18:  "Why  callest  thou  me  good?  None 
is  good,  save  God  only."  Schmiedel  reasons  that  a  Jesus- 
worshipper  could  not  have  invented  this  disclaimer  of  good- 
ness, hence  he  concludes  that  the  report  is  absolutely  trust- 
worthy, that  Jesus  must  have  used  these  words,  hence  must 
have  been  an  historic  man.     In    this    form    the   argument 


COMINUS  195 

crumbles  instantly,  for  it  may  be  proved,  and  the  writer  has 
already  proved  in  this  volume  that  this  famous  incident  is  an 
elaborate  symbolism,  the  Rich  One  being  none  other  than  the 
People  of  Israel,  whom  the  Jesus  (the  new  Jehovah) 'Moved  " 
(verse  21),  according  to  the  prophet,  "  when  Israel  was  young 
I  loved  him  "  (Hos.  ii,  i).  With  the  historicity  of  the  whole 
incident  vanishes  the  historicity  of  the  saying,  and  therewith 
the  argument  based  thereon.  But  perhaps  some  one  may 
interpose  :  "  Never  mind  the  incident;  the  saying  still  reveals 
a  consciousness  that  could  not  have  belonged  to  a  Jesus- 
worshipper  ;  hence  it  must  have  been  preserved  through 
reverence,  and  shows  that  the  older  consciousness  from  which 
it  proceeded  must  have  thought  of  the  Jesus  as  human  (not 
in  the  highest  sense  good),  and  hence  not  as  divine."  This 
interpretation  has  pleased  the  Higher  Critics  immensely.  It 
shows  them  a  Jesus  precisely  after  their  own  hearts,  modest 
and  lowly  and  intensely  human,  and  they  will  not  tolerate 
any  other  conception.  Yet  the  Fathers  did  not  see  it  in  any 
such  light.  They  regarded  it  as  an  argument  for  the  divinity 
of  the  Jesus,  a  syllogism  with  suppressed  conclusion  :  You 
call  me  good  ;  God  alone  is  good  ;  therefore  you  call  me 
(and  correctly  call  me)  God,  "  not  protesting  against  himself 
being  good,"  says  the  ancient  exegete.  And  how  will  anyone 
prove  that  the  Fathers  were  wrong?  The  very  naivete  of 
the  ordinary  conception  seems  rather  suspicious.  Moreover, 
the  original  form  of  the  saying  is  doubtful.  Luke,  indeed 
(xviii,  19),  reproduces  the  Marcan  form,  but  Matthew  presents 
quite  another  (xix,  17) :  ''  Master,  what  good  shall  I  do  that  I 
may  have  life  everlasting?  But  he  said  to  him,  *  Why 
questionest  thou  me  about  the  good?  One  is  the  good.'" 
The  Greek  here  gives  the  masculine,'  but  the  sense  requires 
the  neuter,  the  good. 2  In  the  Syriac  the  distinction  of 
genders  is  lost  as  in  English,  hence  Merx  gives  the  three 
equally  justified  renderings  of  the  Sinaitic  (the  oldest)  text : 
Finer  ist  der  Gute,  Der  Gute  ist  einer,  Das  Gute  ist  eines. 
Of  these  only  the  last  is  possible  in  the  context,  of  which  the 
Greek  would  be  ev  {earlv)  to  ayaOov.  Now  this  is  precisely  the 
form  assumed  by  the  dogma  of  the  Megarean  Euclid,  as  we 

*  efs  effrlv  6  dya66s,  "  iv  (iarlv)  rb  dya66v. 


196  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

learn  from  Diogenes  Laertius  (ii,  106)  :  "  One  is  the  Good, 
though  called  by  many  names. "^  On  comparing  the  many 
varying  text-authorities,  manuscripts,  versions,  and  citations, 
it  seems  clear  not  only  that  this  was  the  primitive  form  in 
Matthew,  but  that  it  was  the  most  primitive  form  of  the 
saying  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge,  for  the  variants 
reveal  an  unmistakable  tendency  to  depart  from  this  form 
and  to  approach  the  Mark-Lucan  form.  Thus  the  Peschita 
reads,  "  There  is  not  Good,  if  not  one — God."  We  can  easily 
understand  the  derivation  of  the  Mark-Lucan  from  the 
Matthasan,  but  not  of  the  Matthaean  from  the  Mark-Lucan. 
We  must  remain  content,  then,  with  the  probability  that  the 
original  form  of  the  saying  was  ''  One  is  the  Good  " — a  catch- 
word of  Greek  ethical  philosophy,  correctly  translated  into 
Aramaic,  then  incorrectly  translated  back  into  Greek. 

32.  So,  it  appears,  there  was  in  all  likelihood  no  original 
reference  to  any  good  Personality,  but  only  to  the  universal 
Principle  of  Goodness.  Herewith,  then,  the  position  of  the 
critic  seems  completely  turned.  But  even  if  the  Marcan  text 
were  accepted  as  original,  there  would  still  be  allowed  from 
it  no  inference  as  to  the  humanity  and  non-divinity  of  the 
Jesus.  We  have  seen  that  the  Fathers  drew  the  opposite 
inference  ;  but  suppose  we  grant  that  therein  they  were  over- 
subtle  ;  let  us  suppose  that  the  Jesus  is  represented  as  dis- 
claiming goodness  ;  it  would  certainly  not  mean  that  he  was 
disclaiming  it  absolutely,  but  only  relatively  (as  the  Father 
says),  "in  contradistinction  from  the  Goodness  of  God." 
Very  well ;  herefrom  we  could  not  infer  that  the  original 
writer  was  conceiving  him  not  as  divine,  but  merely  human. 
For  there  are  many  grades  and  aspects  of  divinity.  F'or 
Jesus  to  be  divine  by  no  means  identifies  him  throughout 
with  the  One  Supreme  God,  with  God  the  Most  High"* 
(Luke  viii,  28,  Acts  xvi,  17,  Hebrews  vii,  i).  With  some 
the  Jesus  was  only  a  certain  mode  or  aspect  of  this  God 
alone  ;  the  worship  of  the  Jesus  or  the  Nazarene  was  not  the 
worship  of  God  in  se^  but  under  the  aspect  of  Saviour  or  of 
Guardian,  in  relation  to  men.  The  ancient  mind  was 
perfectly   familiar  with   this    notion    of   definite   degrees   or 

^  tv  rb  dyadbv  iroWois  dvSficuri  KoXoufievov.  '  6  debs  6  iiiJ/iaTos. 


COMINUS  197 

aspects  or  persons'  of  the  Infinite  Deity,  and  hence  might 
very  well  represent  such  a  Deity  as  disclaiming  Goodness 
in  comparison  with  the  One  God  Most  High.  Tesl  it^  then^ 
as  you  will^  this  fundamental  passage  refuses  to  bear  the 
testimony  for  which  it  was  summoned.  We  pass,  then,  to 
the  next,  which  is  like  unto  it. 

33.  Mark  xiii,  32  (Matthew  xxiv,  36)  :  "  But  concerning 
that  day  or  that  hour  knows  no  one,  neither  the  angels  in 
heaven  nor  the  Son,  except  the  Father."  It  has  no  pertinence 
that  many  manuscripts  omit  ''nor  the  Son";  but  what 
possible  inference  may  be  drawn  concerning  the  humanity  of 
the  Jesus?  We  can  see  none.  True,  a  larger  knowledge  is 
ascribed  to  the  Father  than  to  the  Son,  but  this  is  perfectly 
natural,  as  we  have  just  seen  ;  no  one  claims  that  the  Jesus 
was  originally  vietaphysical  Deity ^  the  God  Most  High.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  mere  humanity  seems  implicitly  but 
emphatically  denied.  The  Son  is  placed  above  the  angels 
in  heaven  and  next  to  the  Father  (for  plainly  a  climax  is 
intended).  The  witness  of  this  fundamental  passage  is 
directly  against  the  position  of  the  liberal  critics,  for  it  attests 
not  the  pure  human  and  earthly,  but  the  divine  and  celestial 
character  of  the  Son  (the  Jesus). 

34.  Last  among  the  words  attributed  to  the  Jesus  we  find 
the  cry  on  the  Cross  :  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me  ?"  (Matthew  xxvii,  46  ;  Mark  xv,  34).  It  must 
be  frankly  and  fully  admitted  that  this  is  by  far  the  most 
solid-seeming  pillar-proof  that  the  skilful  research  of  the 
critic  has  been  able  to  produce.  At  first  sight  it  does  look 
as  if  the  Jesus  were  here  represented  as  a  mere  man,  an 
enthusiast  abandoned  to  his  fate,  and  at  the  last  moment 
realising  that  he  was  forsaken  both  of  earth  and  of  heaven. 
Involuntarily  we  recall  the  pathetic  lines  of  lacopone 
da  Todi  : — 

Vidit  suum  dulcem  natum 
Morlentem,  desolatum, 
Dum  emisit  spirltum. 

Let  US,  however,  consider.  In  the  ancient  conception  a 
Deity  was  a  deathless  being.     It  is  the  ''immortal    gods" 

*  Compare  the  phrase  (2  Cor.  iii,  6),  "glory  of  God  In  person  of  Christ." 


198  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

that  people  Olympus  and  the  whole  literature  of  Greece  and 
Rome  as  well  as  the  records  of  Asia  and  Egypt.  Accord- 
ingly, when  the  ancient  thought  had  to  deal  with  a  dying 
god  it  encountered  a  very  serious  obstacle,  something  indeed 
like  a  contradiction  in  terms.  How  was  this  obstacle  to  be 
removed  or  surmounted,  or  at  least  circumvented  ?  Some 
more  or  less  plausible  artifice  had  to  be  adopted,  and  different 
minds  would  most  probably  adopt  different  devices.  Perhaps 
the  most  obvious  and  most  popular  would  be  to  say  that  the 
divinity  assumed  (put  on  as  a  garment)  a  mortal  form,  which 
he  laid  aside  at  the  moment  of  apparent  death.  Precisely 
how  this  was  done  no  one  would  inquire  too  curiously.  It 
is  enough  that  the  ancient  consciousness  was  perfectly 
familiar  with  the  notion  of  a  god  clothing  himself  in  the 
garment  of  humanity,  or  even  of  some  lower  form  of  mortality. 
It  would  offend  the  reader  to  cite  instances,  they  are  too 
numerous  and  too  familiar  ;  but  the  lofty  words  of  Pindar 
may  be  allowed  us  :  "  And  then  a  lonely-faring  god  came 
suddenly  upon  us,  having  cast  about  him  the  shining 
semblance  of  a  reverend  man."'  The  Hebrew  Scriptures 
also  are  replete  with  theophaniesy  with  apparitions  of  deity 
and  of  angels  in  the  guise  of  men.  Now  it  was  precisely  to 
some  such  device  that  the  primitive  Christians  found  them- 
selves driven  when  they  sought  to  give  pictorial  expression 
to  their  grand  ethical  idea  of  a  suffering  and  dying  God. 
One  of  the  most  vivid  statements  is  found  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians  (ii,  5-1 1),  a  remarkable  passage  :  "  Have  this 
mind  in  you,  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus  :  who  being 
originally  in  the  form  of  God  counted  it  not  a  thing  to  be 
grasped  to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,  but  emptied  himself, 
taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  becoming  in  likeness  of  men  ; 
and  being  found  in  fashion  as  man,  he  humbled  himself, 
becoming  obedient  unto  death,  yea,  the  death  of  the  cross," 
etc.  Here  there  is  no  notion  whatever  of  human  birth  or 
human  history  or  genuine  humanity.  The  Divine  Being 
Christ  Jesus  humbles  himself,  empties  himself  of  his  heavenly 
glory,  takes  the  form  of  a  slave,  submits  to  the  shameful 


*  TOVTOLKL  5'  oloTr6\o^  daifiup  eTrijXdeVy  (}>a.i.8iixav  'Av8pbs  aldoiov  wep  6^iv  dr]Kd/j.€vos. 
— Py.  iv,  50. 


COMINUS  199 

death  of  the  cross.  But  only  in  this  human  guise,  and  the 
momentary  humiliation  is  followed  by  supreme  exaltation. 
Plainly  the  writer  seems  thinking  along  lines  parallel  to 
Pindar's  in  the  passage  just  quoted.  A  similar  conception 
is  found  expressed  weakly  in  Rom.  xv,  3,  more  forcibly  in 
2  Cor.  viii,  9. 

35.  A  most  remarkable  hint  of  a  related  imagination  is 
found  in  Mark  xiv,  51,  52.  As  is  elsewhere  proved  decisively 
(p.  112),  the  ''young  man  wrapped  round  about  with  linen," 
who  was  following  along  with  (accompanying)  Jesus,  was  a 
heavenly  being,  the  guardian  angel  or  angel-self,  the  divine 
nature  of  Jesus.  This  it  was  impossible  for  the  soldiers  to 
arrest ;  it  fled  away,  leaving  behind  in  their  possession  only 
the  linen,  the  glistening  linen,  the  human  flesh,  like  the 
''shining  semblance"  in  which  Pindar's  Poseidon  had  robed 
himself.  Even  so  early  in  the  final  action  Mark  found  it 
proper  to  state  in  terms  vocal  to  the  intelligent  that  the 
passion  of  the  Jesus  was  to  be  understood  as  in  some  sense  a 
symbol,  a  sublime  apparition. 

36.  Turning  now  to  Hippolytus,  we  find  a  luminous 
statement  as  to  the  faith  of  the  Docetae  {Ref.,  viii,  10)  : 
"  And  he,  descended  from  above,  put  on  the  begotten  itself, 
and  all  things  he  did  so  as  in  the  Gospels  has  been  written  ; 
he  washed  himself  (dipping)  into  the  Jordan  ;  washed,  too,  a 
type  and  seal  having  taken  in  the  water,  of  the  body  born 
from  the  virgin,  in  order  that,  when  the  Archon  should 
condemn  his  own  proper  figment  to  death,  to  the  cross,  that 
soul  in  the  body  nourished,  having  stripped  off  the  body  and 
nailed  it  to  the  wood,  and  having  triumphed  through  it  over 
the  principalities  and  the  powers,  be  not  found  naked,  but  put 
on  the  body  that  had  been  ectyped  in  the  water  when  he  was 
baptised,  instead  of  that  flesh."  It  matters  not  how  fanciful 
we  may  regard  this  theorising ;  the  point  is  that  it  presents 
clearly  and  unmistakably  a  certain  thought  regarding  the 
human  semblance  and  the  part  it  played  in  the  crucifixion. 
This  form  sprung  from  the  Virgin  was  indeed  nailed  to  the 
cross  ;  but  the  soul,  the  true  Jesus,  was  already  clothed  upon 
with  another  form  impressed  upon  it  in  the  act  of  baptism  ; 
and  when  the  "peculiar  figment"  {plasma)  of  flesh  was 
crucified,  the  soul  (the  Jesus)  stripped  off  the  crucified  figment, 


200  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

and,  clothed  on  with  the  ectypal  body  received  in  baptism,  it 
triumphed  over  all  the  principalities  and  powers  leagued 
under  the  Archon'  for  its  destruction. 

ZT'  It  is  vain  to  say  that  this  is  only  a  very  late  figment 
of  fancy.  The  passage  just  quoted,  or  at  least  its  idea,  with 
its  form  of  expression,  is  older  than  Col.  ii,  14,  15,  as  is 
elsewhere  shown  (p.  88,  n.).  In  fact,  the  Colossian  passage 
adopts  the  Docetic  phrases,  appropriates  them  to  another  use, 
and  thereby  makes  them  unintelligible.  The  doctrine  above 
set  forth  may  in  its  elaborated  form  very  well  be  later  than  the 
Gospel,  but  it  is  manifest,  and  it  is  enough,  that  the  central 
idea  is  one  and  the  same — namely,  that  on  the  cross  the  true 
God,  the  Jesus,  laid  aside  the  form  of  flesh  temporarily 
assumed,  and  escaped,  whether  as  a  naked  (yvfivov)  disem- 
bodied spirit  or  as  clothed  upon  with  an  ectypal  or  spiritual 
body.  That  the  ancient  mind  shrank  from  the  notion  of  a 
naked  (bodiless)  spirit  is  seen  clearly  in  i  Cor.  xv,  where  the 
Apostle  argues  so  powerfully  for  a  body  for  spirit  as  well  as  a 
body  for  soul;  and  also  in  2  Cor.  v,  1-4,  where  he  deprecates 
being  found  naked  (a  bodiless  spirit).     , 

38.  Such  is  the  company  of  conceptions  in  which  this 
pillar-passage  finds  its  explanation  ;  and  we  see  clearly  that 
it  testifies  not  at  all  to  the  historic  reality  of  a  man  Jesus,  but 
to  the  high-flown  idea  of  a  God  who  had  transiently  thrown 
round  himself  a  vestment  of  flesh,  which  vestment  he  aban- 
doned on  the  cross,  and  thence  ascended,  flesh-unshrouded, 
triumphant  to  his  native  heaven.  This  idea  seems  natural, 
and  almost  necessary  (at  some  stage  of  evolution),  if,  and 
only  if,  the  primitive  notion  was  of  a  God  in  some  way 
appearing  to  men  (even  as  Jehovah  appeared  in  the  Old 
Testament) ;  but  it  is  a  confounding  case  of  reversed  genera- 
tion, of  ''the  child  the  father  of  the  man,"  if  we  assume  that 
the  primitive  notion  was  of  Jesus  a  pure  man,  as  contended 
by  critical  theology.  It  may  not  be  superfluous  to  observe 
that  the  words  (given  by  the  MSS.  in  three  principal  forms — 
Hebrew,  eli^  eli,  lama  zafthani;  Aramaean,  eloi^  eloi,  lama 

*  The  same  Archon  (prince)  so  conspicuous  in  John :  "  Now  the  Archon  of 
this  world  shall  be  cast  out"  (xii,  31);  "Comes  the  Archon  of  the  world" 
(xiv,  30),  because  "the  Archon  of  this  world  has  been  judged"  (xvi,  11) ;  also 
mentioned  in  Ephesians:  "The  Archon  of  the  power  of  the  air"  (ii,  2). 


COMINUS  20I 

sahachthani ;  Hebrew-Aramaean,  eliy  eli,  lama  sahachthani) 
here  ascribed  to  Jesus  are  taken  from  Psalm  xxii,  i,  where 
they  are  heard  as  the  cry  of  the  Just  and  Persecuted  (Israel). 
Their  ascription  to  a  deity  who  had  emptied  himself  of  glory 
and  put  on  a  cloak  of  suffering  flesh  seems  no  way  strange — 
nor  their  utterance  on  the  cross,  since  Plato  had  said  the  Just, 
thought  unjust,  would  be  crucified.  That  they  did  not  jar 
with  Mark's  (and  Matthew's)  conception  of  Jesus  as  God  we 
may  be  sure ;  for,  had  they  jarred,  the  way  was  wide  open 
for  him  to  leave  them  out — as  did  Luke,  supplacing  them 
with  the  more  edifying  prayer,  "■  Father,  into  thy  hands  I 
commend  my  spirit";  and  John,  substituting  the  dramatic 
Tetelestai  (it  is  finished);  and  the  "Gospel  of  Peter,"  still 
more  neatly  altering  eli  (my  God)  into  ejali  (my  strength). 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  these  three  had  more 
reverence  for  Jesus  and  less  respect  for  his  words  than  had 
Mark  (or  Matthew)  ;  it  is  only  different  preferences  they 
display  in  theologising  fiction.  To  the  Docetic  Mark 
(followed  by  Matthew)  the  cry  seemed  perfectly  fitting, 
and  almost  demanded  as  fulfilment  of  Scripture  ;  had  it  not 
seemed  so,  never  would  he  have  imputed  it  to  Jesus.  The 
notion  that  tradition  forced  it  upon  him  is  baseless,  and 
completely  refuted  by  the  procedure  of  Luke,  John,  and 
"Peter." 

39.  We  come  now  to  the  deeds  of  the  Jesus  that  are 
supposed  to  indicate  his  mere  humanity.  Of  these  the  first 
is  :  (I)  Mark  vi,  5  ;  Matthew  xiii,  58  :  "  And  he  could  not 
there  do  any  deed  of  might,  save  that,  having  laid  his  hands 
on  a  few  invalids,  he  healed  them  ;  and  he  marvelled  at  their 
unbelief."  Apparently  it  is  thought  that  only  a  man  could 
have  this  power  limited  by  another's  unbelief,  and  that  only 
of  a  man  would  such  a  limitation  be  reported.  Professor 
Schmiedel  says  this  took  place  "in  Nazareth,"  but  Mark  and 
Matthew  declare  only  that  "he  came  into  his  fatherland,"^ 
which  decidedly  does  not  signify  Nazareth.  The  meaning  of 
the  whole  passage  is  clear,  and  need  give  no  great  trouble. 
The  "  fatherland  "  {patris)  is,  apparently,  Jewry,  Israel,  the 
Jewish  people — specifically  the  Palestinian  Jews.     When  the 

*  e^j  r^j/  irarpida  avTov. 


202  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

Jesus-cult  came  to  them  it  encountered,  and  has  always 
encountered,  persistent  opposition.  Among  them  it  has 
done  no  deeds  of  might,  for  they  will  not  believe.  "  A  few 
weak  ones  "  have  accepted  it,  but  the  strong  body  of  the  race 
has  steadily  rejected  it.  The  passage  hints  nothing  whatever 
about  the  humanity  of  the  Jesus,  but  it  exhibits  the  Jesus-cult 
as  triumphant  among  the  Gentiles  and  despised  by  the  Jews. 
Also  it  represents,  and  very  properly  represents,  the  progress 
of  the  cult  and  its  triumph  as  dependent  upon  the  faith  with 
which  it  is  received.     Precisely  as  we  should  expect. 

40.  (II)  Mark  viii,  12  (Matthew  xii,  39;  xvi,  4;  Luke 
xi,  29) :  "  Why  doth  this  generation  seek  a  sign  ?  Amen  I 
say  to  you  if  there  shall  be  given  to  this  generation  a  sign  " 
("  but  the  sign  of  Jonah,  the  prophet " — "  but  the  sign  of 
Jonah" — **  but  the  sign  of  Jonah  ").  It  is  not  the  word,  but 
rather  the  deed  of  the  Jesus  disclaiming  thaumaturgy  or  sign- 
giving,  that  the  critic  regards  as  clearly  indicating  humanity, 
even  modest  humanity.  The  sign  of  Jonah  is  taken  as  the 
preaching  of  Jonah.  In  proof  we  are  referred  to  ''the 
immediate  sequel — *  the  men  of  Nineveh  repented  at  the 
preaching  of  Jonah.'"  But  of  all  this  the  explanation  lies 
on  the  open  hand.  It  is  the  Jesus-cult  that  is  wonderfully 
successful ;  the  Gentiles  far  and  near  are  falling  away  from 
their  idol-worship  and  receiving  the  '*  new  teaching";  they 
are  repenting  even  as  the  people  of  Nineveh  repented.  This 
is,  indeed,  the  one  and  only  sign  that  the  Jesus  gives  that 
marks  the  progress  of  his  cult  among  the  nations.  But  did 
he  not  cast  out  demons?  Assuredly  !  But  this  preaching  of 
the  "  new  doctrine,"  this  conversion  of  the  heathen,  was 
casting  out  demons,  was  cleansing  lepers,  was  healing  the 
sick,  the  lame,  the  blind,  was  raising  the  dead.  Once  more 
there  is  nothing  to  be  found  in  the  passage  but  the  strongest 
confirmation  of  the  interpretation  herein  championed  and 
illustrated. 

41.  In  close  connection  with  the  foregoing  stands  (III) 
Matthew  xi,  5  (Luke  vii,  22),  the  answer  to  the  Baptist : 
"  (the)  blind  look  up,  and  (the)  lame  walk  about,  lepers  are 
cleansed,  and  (the)  deaf  hear,  and  (the)  dead  are  raised,  and 
(the)  poor  evangelised.  And  blessed  is  whoever  is  not 
offended   in   me."     Professor  Schmiedel  is  impressed  with 


COMINUS  203 

the  fact  "  that  all  the  miracles  mentioned  have  taken  place, 
either  at  an  earlier  date,  or  before  the  eyes  of  the  Baptist's 
messengers.  All  the  more  remarkable  therefore  is  it  that  the 
list  should  close  with  what  is  not  a  miracle  at  all.  It  would 
be  impossible  to  counteract  the  preceding  enumeration  more 
effectually  than  by  the  simple  insertion  of  this  final  clause. 
The  evangelists  therefore  cannot  have  added  it  of  their  own 
proper  motion.  Neither  could  Jesus  have  neutralised  the 
force  of  his  own  words — if  we  assume  miracles  to  be  intended 
— in  such  an  extraordinary  way.  On  the  other  hand  the 
clause  in  question  fits  admirably,  if  Jesus  was  speaking  not 
of  the  physically  but  of  the  spiritually  blind,  lame,  leprous, 
deaf,  dead.  This  is  the  meaning,  too,  which  these  words 
actually  have  in  the  Old  Testament  passages,  Isaiah  xxxv,  5/./ 
Ixi,  I,  which  lie  at  the  root  of  this  ;  and  it  also  fits  very  well 
the  continuation  in  Matthew  xi,  6  ;  Luke  vii,  23,  which  reads, 
*  Blessed  is  he  who  is  not  offended  in  me'  (i.e,^  'in  my 
unpretentious  simplicity).  Here,  therefore,  we  have  a  case, 
as  remarkable  as  it  is  assured,  in  which  a  saying  of  Jesus, 
though  completely  m^isunderstood^  has  been — in  its  essence  at 
least — incorporated  with  verbal  accuracy  in  the  Gospels." 

42.  To  do  no  possible  injustice,  we  have  quoted  in  full  the 
argument  on  this  important  passage.  It  contains  much  that 
seems  to  be  entirely  just.  We  have  italicised  what  appear  to 
be  the  unwarranted  statements.  Professor  Schmiedel  seems 
to  err  in  supposing  the  evangelists  have  misunderstood  any- 
thing. They  have  used  the  terms  "blind,"  "lame,"  "leper," 
"  deaf,"  "  dead,"  "  poor,"  throughout  in  their  proper  spiritual 
sense,  and  perfectly  consciously.  They  meant  no  physical 
miracles  whatever,  and  they  have  quite  correctly  summed-up 
the  situation  in  the  climacteric,  "  the  poor  are  evangelised  " 
— that  is,  the  Gospel  is  proclaimed  to  the  poor  heathen — a 
bold  and  beautiful  characterisation  of  the  primitive  propa- 
ganda. The  passage  is  quite  self-consistent  throughout. 
The  "  unpretentious  simplicity "  is  simply  a  fancy.  No 
matter  how  you  interpret  the  Gospels,  the  Jesus  was  neither 
simple  nor  unpretentious,^  The  meek  and  lowly  Jesus  exists 
only  in  the   imaginations  of  modern   Christians.     But   the 

*  See  Addendum,  p.  226. 


204  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

phrase  ''whoso  is  not  offended  in  me"  is  most  significant. 
What  about  the  Jesus  could  give  offence,  could  cause  one  to 
stumble  at  accepting  him  ?  Manifestly  not  simplicity,  not 
unpretentiousness.  One  thing,  and  one  thing  only — his 
half-heathen  origin,  the  fact  that  the  "  new  doctrine  "  sprang 
up,  not  on  the  sacred  soil  of  Judasa,  not  in  the  bosom  of  the 
strict  Pharisaic  or  priestly  party,  not  under  the  sacred  shadow 
of  the  temple,  but  far  away  in  the  Dispersion,  among  the 
Gentiles  ;  there  the  great  light  arose  in  the  deep  dark  of  the 
nations  ; '  and  at  this  fact  Israel  has  always  stumbled.  It 
seems,  then,  that  this  celebrated  passage  testifies  openly  in 
favour  of  our  contention.  Very  noteworthy  is  the  use  of  the 
term  ''the  Christ"  (xi,  2),  but  we  are  not  at  present  concerned 
with  its  implications. 

43.  (IV)  Lastly,  we  come  to  the  misunderstanding  of  the 
disciples  concerning  the  leaven  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
Mark  viii,  14-21  (Matthew  xvi,  5-12;  Luke  xii,  i) :  ''Take 
heed,  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  leaven  of 
Herod"  (in  Matthew,  "and  of  the  Sadducees";  in  Luke, 
simply  "of  the  Pharisees").  The  pith  of  Professor  Schmiedel's 
reasoning  seems  to  be  disclosed  in  two  sentences  :  "  Both 
evangelists  have  previously  related  the  feeding  of  the  5,000 
and  the  4,000  as  facts ^  He  then  goes  on  to  show  that  only 
on  assuming  that  the  "  feeding  of  the  5,000  and  the  4,000  was 
not  an  historical  occurrence,  but  a  parable,"  does  the  language 
of  the  Jesus  become  intelligible  ;  and  then  continues  :  "  It  is 
exceedingly  surprising,  yet  at  the  same  time  evidence  of  a 
reproduction  of  earlier  materials,  that  Mark  and  Matthew 
should  give  the  present  narrative  at  all — a  narrative  which 

^  So  declares  Origen  {C.  Cels.  vi,  66)  in  a  passage  too  important  not  to 
quote  :  "And  to  this  we  will  reply,  that  all  sit  in  darkness  and  are  rooted 
therein  who  gaze  on  the  wicked  handiwork  of  the  painters  and  moulders  and 
sculptors,  nor  will  look  aloft  and  ascend  in  thought  from  all  things  sensible 
and  visible  unto  the  Demiurge  of  all  things,  who  is  Light ;  but  everyone  is  in 
light  that  has  followed  the  beams  of  the  Logos,  who  has  shown  through  what 
ignorance  and  impiety  and  unlearnedness  concerning  the  Divine  these  things 
were  worshipped  instead  of  God,  and  has  led  the  mind  of  him  that  would  be 
saved  unto  the  God  unbegotten  and  over  all.  '  For  the  people  that  sat  in 
darkness  ' — the  Gentiles — '  saw  a  great  light,  and  for  them  that  sat  in  the 
region  and  shadow  of  death  a  light  arose  ' — the  God  Jesus  (6  deh^  'Ii/croOs)." 
Surely  the  chief  of  Church  Fathers  here  indicates  with  all  desirable  clear- 
ness the  two  hinges  of  Proto-Christianity  :  its  Aim — the  Salvation  of  men 
(especially  Gentiles)  from  ignorance  of  God  and  the  consequent  sin  of  idol- 
worship  with  all  its  attendant  vice  ;  its  Means — the  monotheistic  cult  of  Jesus, 
the  Doctrine  of  the  Divine  Logos,  of  "The  God  Jesus." 


CONCLUSION  205 

in  their  understanding  of  the  miracle  of  the  feeding  is  so 
meaningless."  Again  we  have  italicised  the  few  words  to 
which  we  must  except.  Of  course,  we  cannot  say  who  first 
misunderstood  the  symbolic  narrative  of  the  feeding,'  but  no 
evidence  has  been  produced  that  Mark  and  Matthew  mis- 
understood it,  or  that  they  related  these  feedings  "as  facts." 
This  prop  removed,  the  argument  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica 
falls  to  the  ground.  The  whole  passage  remains  somewhat 
mysterious  ;  but  we  are  not  logically  responsible  for  clearing 
it  up  perfectly.  It  is  enough  for  our  purposes  to  recognise 
distinctly  that  it  contains  nothing  to  recommend  the  notion 
either  that  the  Jesus  was  a  mere  man,  or  that  the  earliest 
compilers  conceived  of  him  as  such. 

CONCLUSION 

44.  Herewith,  then,  the  Nine  Pillars  have  been  disinte- 
grated. Not  one  of  them  bears  witness  for  the  accepted 
critical  position,  while  some  of  them  bear  eloquent  witness 
directly  against  it.  But  this  collapse  and  crumbling  of  these 
pillars  means  far  more  than  merely  that  these  particular 
supports  have  dissolved  into  dust.  For  these  were  the 
chosen  passages  on  which  the  scholar  and  critic  had  rested 
and  risked  his  case,  and  but  for  which  he  would  regard  that 
case  as  hopeless.^  They  supplied  him  the  most  plausible 
arguments  that  he  could  find,  the  least  equivocal  indications 
that  he  could  discover  anywhere  in  the  Gospels.  And  these 
elect  witnesses,  on  cross-examination,  produce  testimony  that 
is  either  entirely  negative  or  else  positively  contradictory  of 
the  idea  in  whose  interest  they  were  called  into  court.  When 
these  witnesses  thus  turn  coat,  where  shall  we  find  any  in  the 
Gospels  that  will  remain  firm?  The  answer  is,  "Nowhere." 
There  are  no  texts  in  the  Gospels  that  indicate  that  the  Jesus 
was  a  man.     Of  course,   he  is  represented  as  speaking,  as 

^  Nor  who  last,  for  Schmiedel  has  himself  g-one  slightly  astray.  It  cannot  be 
"  that  the  bread  with  which  one  man  in  the  wilderness  was  able  to  feed  a  vast 
multitude  signifies  the  teaching  with  which  he  satisfied  their  souls  "  (Schmiedel). 
No  man  can  point  anywhere  to  any  such  soul-satisfying  teaching  hy  Jesus.  On 
the  contrary,  the  bread  distributed  hy  the  Disciples  to  the  multitude  is  the 
teaching  hy  the  Disciples  concerning  the  Jesus,  John's  interpretation  is  essen- 
tially correct  (vi,  32^). 

'  See  quotation,  p.  2iZ' 


2o6  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

going  from  place  to  place,  even  as  sleeping  and  (in  a  trans- 
parent parable)  as  hungering,  as  working  wonders,  as  being 
surrendered,  arrested,  tried,  condemned,  executed,  buried, 
raised  again.  But  all  this  is  only  imagery  ;  it  is  but  the 
linen  cloth  that  is  wrapped  round  about  the  divine  form  of 
the  "  new  teaching";  it  is  but  the  historisation  of  a  system 
of  religious  ideas.  The  deep  thinkers  who  invented  these 
parables  and  symbols  were  perfectly  conscious  of  the  inner 
sense,  and  so  were  the  first  who  heard  them,  and  repeated 
them,  and  wrote  them  down. 

45.  Yea,  this  consciousness  survived  keen  and  clear  for 
generations,  at  least  in  many  groups  of  Christians.  In  the 
first  quarter  of  the  second  century  (according  to  current 
chronology),  perhaps  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the 
first  secret  propaganda  begun,  we  find  that  the  fiery  Ignatius 
has  his  heart  set  on  a  strict  historic  interpretation  of  the 
Gospel,  at  least  in  its  main  features,  and  he  fiercely  denounces 
such  as  oppose  him.  He  has  the  ardent  zeal  of  one  that  is 
advancing  something  comparatively  new,  not  the  calm  con- 
fidence of  a  conservative  upholding  the  old.  In  Justin 
Martyr  somewhat  later  we  find  the  contentions  of  the 
historisers  epitomised  in  a  formula  that  very  strongly 
suggests  the  Apostles'  Creed.  In  Irenasus  and  Tertullian, 
at  the  close  of  the  second  century,  we  find  the  historisers 
battling  valiantly  against  all  the  more  ancient  forms  of 
Christian  thought,  and  vehemently  denouncing  them  as 
heresies  of  recent  growth.  The  absurdity  of  their  contention 
is  apparent  on  its  face,  and  yet  they  succeeded  in  their  strife 
over  much  more  spiritual  and  high-minded  antagonists. 
For  anyone  who  reads  with  impartial  sense  the  works  of  the 
heresy-hunters  must  perceive  that  Marcion,  Basilides,  Valen- 
tinus,  and  many  others,  were  far  superior  to  their  denouncers 
in  all  the  loftier  qualities  of  religious  intuition  and  theological 
speculation.  Hereby  it  is  not  denied  that  these  noble 
Gnostics,  to  whom  the  illustrious  Harnack  concedes  that  we 
owe  so"  much,  were  too  often  visionary  and  hopelessly 
fantastic  in  their  daring  constructions.  Their  speculations 
were  dreamy,  phantasmagoric,  and  full  of  emptiness,  not 
adapted  to  the  general  social  and  religious  conditions  of  the 
time.     No  wonder  that  they  went  under  in  the  struggle  with 


CONCLUSION  207 

the  concrete  matter-of-fact  historisations  of  Irenasus,  Tertul- 
lian,  and  the  rest.     We  need  not  regret  that  they  failed,  for 
they  had  run  off  into  all  manner  of  extravagance,  and  did  not 
deserve  to  succeed.     Nevertheless,  we  owe  them  an  incalcul- 
able debt  of  gratitude,  for  without  their  indications  it  might 
have  been  impossible  ever  to  discover  the  original  sense  and  l, 
spirit  of  the  Christian  propaganda,  so  overladen  as  it  now  is  Ij 
with  the  millennial  growth  of  degenerate  historisation.     This,  '^' 
however,  is  a  digression  from  which  we  hasten  to  return. 

46.  In  closing  let  attention  once  more  be  called  to  the 
heavy  obligations  under  which  Professor  Schmiedel  has 
placed  historical  criticism  by  his  sharp  and  accurate  formula- 
tion of  the  logical  conditions  of  the  problem  in  hand.  By 
disclosing  and  signalising  the  strongholds  of  the  prevalent 
critical  opinion,  he  has  rendered  it  possible  to  join  issue 
precisely  and  definitely,  to  grapple  in  hand-to-hand  struggle, 
and  to  bring  the  battle  to  an  unambiguous  result.  As  long 
as  defenders  of  the  historicity  content  themselves  with  vague 
intangible  rhapsodies  on  the  imposing  personality  of  the 
Jesus,  wherein  no  two  exhibit  delineations  that  bear  any 
recognisable  resemblance  either  to  each  other  or  to  the 
Gospel  original,  so  long  even  the  most  vigorous  and  rigorous 
counter-dialectic  must  in  some  measure  prove  to  be  merely 
buffeting  the  air.  Of  what  avail  to  smite  down  such  cloud- 
forms  that  like  the  ghost  of  Loda  fall  shapeless  into  mist, 
only  to  gather  themselves  together  again  and  resume  their 
voice  of  thunder  and  shake  their  dusky  spears?  But  in  the 
case  of  Schmiedel's  Pillars  we  encounter  something  real, 
tangible,  close-reasoned,  and  subtly  excogitated.  For  these 
columns  to  stand  means  for  the  historic  conception  of  the 
Jesus  to  become  a  permanent  possession  of  the  human  spirit, 
inalienable  and  indefectible.  For  them  to  fall  and  crumble, 
as  we  have  seen  them  do,  means  the  passing  of  the  present 
structure  of  Christianity,  and  the  substitution  therefor  of  an 
older,  a  sublimer,  and  a  more  spiritual  temple. 

Machtiger 

Der  Erdensohne, 

Prachtiger 

Baue  sie  wieder. 

In  deinem  Busen  baue  sie  auf ! 


2o8  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 


ADDENDUM  L 


Supplementing  §  17. 

In  Luke  ii,  52,  we  read  that  "Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom  and 
stature  and  in  favour  with  God  and  men."  Professor 
Schmiedel  was  too  cautious  or  astute  to  number  this  passage 
among  his  ground-pillars  ;  but  his  able  disciple,  Dr.  Arno 
Neumann — who  is  deeply  touched  by  "the  simple,  sober, 
naive  facts  of  history  as  we  find  them  in  the "  Synoptic 
"  Gospels " — has  not  shown  such  foresight.  With  it  he 
heads  his  list  (otherwise  agreeing  with  Schmiedel's)  of 
"  Statements  which  can  be  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
survivals  of  the  truth,  precious  fragments,"  etc.,  and  he  adds  : 
"  Had  the  writer  been  a  worshipper  of  Jesus  as  a  deity,  he 
would  have  presented  him  to  us  as  full-grown  "  {Jesus^  p.  10). 
This,  too,  is  a  "precious  fragment"  exemplifying  the  habits 
of  distinguished  critics  ;  it  is,  indeed,  invaluable  for  the 
purposes  of  our  argument.  One  or  two  features  seem  to 
call  for  careful  inquisition. 

Dr.  Neumann  is  sure  that  "a  worshipper  of  Jesus  as  a 
deity  would  have  presented  him  to  us  as  full-grown."  But 
how  can  he  be  so  sure  ?  Are  not  the  stories  of  the  gods, 
stories  invented  by  their  worshippers,  full  of  accounts  of 
birth  and  childhood?  Has  Dr.  Neumann  forgotten  Bacchus 
and  Zeus  ?  Does  not  Pindar  tell  us  how  Leto  steadied  with 
her  holy  foot  the  vagrant  island  of  Delos,  and  made  it  broad 
earth's  immovable  marvel,  and  there  brought  forth  to  light 
and  looked  upon  her  blessed  brood  ?  And  does  anyone 
doubt  that  Pindar  worshipped  Apollo  and  Artemis  as  deities  ? 
The  stories  of  the  birth  and  childhood  of  the  Jesus  are  quite 
in  line  with  other  theogonies  invented  by  the  ancients,  all 
of  whom  worshipped  these  prodigious  births  as  deities. 

Observe  well,  however,  that  these  stories  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  do  not  belong  to  the  earliest  narrative.  It  is  recognised 
on  all  hands  that  they  are  late  accretions  ;  they  are  the  full 
flower  and  almost  the  ripened  fruit  of  the  humanising 
tendency  that  has  wrought    such  wreck  with    the   original 


ADDENDUM  I.  209 

doctrine  of  the  Jesus.  To  adduce  them  or  any  part  of  them 
as  examples  of  the  primitive  Evangelic  conception  is  a  notable 
critical  procedure.  Perhaps  it  would  have  been  worthier  of 
the  new  deity  to  be  introduced  on  the  stage  in  the  full  flush 
of  heavenly  power,  without  any  enfeebling  suggestions  of 
earthly  parentage.  And  this  is  precisely  what  Mark  does 
(i,  1-3) :  "  Beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ :  even  as  / 
is  written  in  Isaiah  the  Prophet,  Lo  I  send  mine  Angel  ^ 
before  thy  face,  who  shall  prepare  thy  way  ;  voice  of  a  crier, 
*  in  the  wilderness  make  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord,  straight 
make  his  paths.' "  It  is  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  that  comes,  and 
comes  in  might.  Similarly  the  Fourth  Evangelist,  striking 
a  keynote  less  highly  poetic,  but  more  deeply  philosophic. 
It  is  only  Matthew  and  Luke  that  yield  to  the  weakness  of 
human  nature,  and  open  the  gate  for  the  tiresome  procession 
of  Gospels^ of  the_ Infancy.  On  account  of  the  hardness  of 
our  hearts  they  did  this,  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so. 

This  verse,  with  which  Dr.  Neumann  precedes  the 
Schmiedelian  list,  is  in  fact  a  striking  illustration  of  the 
process  whereby  the  whole  evangelic  and  apocryphal  history 
has  come  into  being.  At  first,  as  in  Mark's  narrative,  there 
was  little  thought  of  humanising  the  divine  figure  introduced 
upon  the  stage.  Still,  if  there  was  to  be  any  historisation, 
dramatisation,  or  symbolisation  at  all  of  the  great  ideas  that 
seethed  in  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist,  then  the  principle  of 
Xenophanes  had  to  be  followed  ;  the  Deity  had  to  be  repre- 
sented as  a  man — as  speaking,  walking,  sleeping,  doing 
deeds  of  might,  and  at  last  even  dying.  Similarly,  though 
even  in  still  less  degree,  in  the  earliest  collection  of  Sayings 
(Logoi,  Logia)  of  the  Jesus,  he  is  of  necessity  represented  as 
human,  as  speaking.  A  Saying  was  regularly  introduced  by 
the  phrase  "The  Jesus  says,"  or  the  like.  This  was  exactly 
parallel  with  the  customary  preamble  of  the  prophets  :  "  Thus 
saith  Jehovah,"  "Oracle  of  Jehovah,"  etc.,  and,  in  fact, 
presents  the  Jesus  as  a  new  Jehovah,  or  at  least  as  a  pro- 
Jehovah,  the  conception  that  reigns  throughout  early 
Christian  literature. 

Gradually  and  most  naturally  the  artistijc  feeling  asserted 
itself  more  and  more,  and  dramatic  situations  were  devised 
and  then  elaborated  as  settings  for  the  Sayings,  which  them- 


k\^ 


5id  THE  PILLARS  01^  SCHMIEDEL 

selves  underwent  great  development  and  expansion.     Of  this 
process  the  Fourth  Gospel  furnishes  perfect  illustrations.    At 
the  same  time  or  later  there  made  itself  felt  the  universal 
tendency  to  humanise  unnecessarily ^  and  even  unreasonably ; 
to  attribute  to  the  God  the  passions  and  even  the  weaknesses 
of  man,  and  especially  to  accent  the  pathetic  and  the  sympa- 
thetic.    Thus  the  Fourth  Evangelist  insists  that  Jesus  loved, 
and  even  that  he  wept ;  while  the  late  accounts  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  profaning  the  sacred  reserve  of  Mark  (i,  13),  inform 
\  us  that  he  fasted,  and  afterwards  hungered.     Last  and  least 
pardonable,  though  perfectly  natural,  are  the  stories  of  birth, 
infancy,  and  childhood.     After  the  humanising  process  had 
I  triumphed  over  the  solemn  and  awful  divinity  of  the  original 
^conception,  it  was  inevitable  that  human  fancy  should  ask 
and  should  answer  the   questions:  How  was  he  begotten? 
How  born?     How  nourished?     What  wonders  glorified  his 
early  years?     In  all  of  this  development  we  recognise  the 
most  familiar  workings  of  human  nature.     "  Of  all  things 
the  measure   is   man,"   said    Protagoras  ;    in  all   ages  man 
himself  has  been  the  canon  that  he  has  laid  upon  the  universe, 
whereby  he  has  meted,  interpreted,  and   constructed   it   in 
thought. 


ADDENDUM  IL 


CASTING  OUT  DEMONS 

The  perception  that  the  demons  of  the  New  Testament 
are  the  heathen  gods,  and  that  casting  them  out  means 
overthrowing  the  prevailing  idolatry  by  the  introduction  of 
the  Jesus-cult,  is  so  fundamentally  important,  and  even 
essential  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  original  sense  of 
the  Gospel,  that  it  may  be  well  to  look  at  it  still  more  narrowly 
than  has  thus  far  been  done.' 

*  It  is  gratifying  to  observe  that  on  pp.  \%o  ff.  of  his  acute  and  learned 
work,  De  groote  Vraag  {igii),  Professor  Bolland  has  expressed  himself  in 
full  accord  with  the  views  herein  set  forth,  as  well  as  with  the  interpretation 
of  the  Rich  One  as  the  symbol  of  Jewry.     If  the  philosopher  of  Leiden  has 


ADDENDUM  II.  211 

The  census  of  the  uses  of  ^aijuoviov  (demon,  devil)  in  the 
New  Testament  appears  at  first  glance  rather  formidable. 
It  recurs  in  Matthew  eleven  times,  in  Mark  thirteen,  in  Luke 
twenty-three,  in  John  six,  in  Acts  one,  in  i  Corinthians  four 
(x,  20,  21),  in  I  Timothy  one,  in  James  one,  in  Revelation 
three.  Besides,  Matthew  has  ^aifxoviZofxai  (have  a  demon) 
seven  times,  Mark  four,  Luke  one,  John  one  (x,  21).  Quite 
equivalent  seems  to  be  the  expression  unclean  or  evil  spirit 
{irvevfia  aKadaprov  or  irovripov)  recurrent  in  Matthew  four  times, 
in  Mark  twelve,  in  Luke  nine,  in  Acts  six  (v,  16;  viii,  7;  xix, 
12,  13,  15,  16),  in  Revelation  two  (xvi,  13  ;  xviii,  2).  Besides, 
we  have  ^aifxwv  (demon)  once  (Matthew  viii,  31),  and  divining 
spirit  {irvevfjLa  7rvdu)va)  once  (Acts  xvi,  16).  Hence  the 
idea  may  be  said  to  occur  in  Matthew  about  twenty-three 
times,  in  Mark  twenty-eight,  in  Luke  thirty-three,  in  John 
seven,  in  Acts  seven,  with  a  few  scattering  and  unimportant 
uses  in  i  Corinthians,  i  Timothy,  James,  and  Revelation. 
Practically  it  is  confined  to  the  Synoptics,  for  the  Johannine 
uses  all  refer  to  the  charge  of  having  a  demon^  brought  against 
the  Jesus  (yW^  20;  viii,  48,  49,  52;  x,  20,  21).  The  notion 
of  casting  out  demons,  the  real  matter  in  hand,  does  not 
occur  in  John.  All  the  more  conspicuous  is  it  in  the 
Synoptics  ;  but  here  again  we  find  something  remarkable  : 
all  the  references  to  demons  and  unclean  spirits  belong  to 
the  Galilean,  none  whatever  to  the  Jud^an,  ministry  of  the 
Jesus.  The  last  appearance  of  such  a  term  in  Matthew  is 
at  xvii,  18,  after  the  Transfiguration  ;  in  Mark  at  ix,  38,  in 
Capernaum ;  in  Luke  at  xiii,  32,  apparently  in  Galilee, 
"journeying  toward  Jerusalem"  (verse  22).  Here  there  is 
something  that  calls  for  explanation.  The  cases  of  possession 
and  of  exorcism  in  Galilee  have  been  countless  ;  in  Judaea 
there  are  none  at  all.  Can  it  be  that  epileptic  lunacy  and 
nervous  disorders  prevailed  so  amazingly  in  Galilee,  but 
found  no  material  in  Judsea?  Certainly  not;  for  it  is  an 
ethnological  fact  that  the  Jews  are  specially  subject  to  such 
distempers,    though   otherwise    uncommonly   vigorous   and 

reached  such  results  independently  of  this  book,  which  he  has  read  carefully 
and  elsewhere  cites  repeatedly  in  its  German  form,  but  not  on  pp.  180^,  then 
this  coincidence  affords  a  very  strong  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of  the 
views  in  question. 


212  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

healthy.  There  is  one  and  only  one  explanation  of  this  curious 
evangelic  distinction  between  these  two  adjoining  regions  : 
the  maladies  in  question  were  spiritual  maladies  that  afflicted 
whole  multitudes  in  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles,  but  not  the  Jews 
in  Jud^a  ;  they  were  the  maladies  of  false  religion,  of  demon- 
worship,  of  Paganism.' 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  for  a  moment  that  I  would  deny 
there  were  epileptics,  lunatics,  maniacs,  neurasthenics,  both  in 
Galilee  and  in  Judaga.  Of  course,  there  were,  and  are,  and 
will  be.  Moreover,  the  symbolist,  having  once  determined 
to  represent  Polytheism,  that  multiform  aberration  of  the 
human  mind,  as  possession  by  a  demon,  both  naturally  and 
well-nigh  inevitably  drew  the  features  of  his  description  from 
his  own  observation,  or  at  least  knowledge,  of  the  course  of 
such  attacks  in  noteworthy  patients. 

Of  course,  the  ancients  had  the  idea  of  one's  being  under 
the  power  of  a  Daemon,  though  it  was  expressed  by  ^aijULovau) 
rather  than  by  ^aijioviZo^aL,  which  properly  means  to  be 
doomed,  or  else  deified.  But  that  any  such  afflictions  over- 
whelmed the  multitudes  of  Galilee,  or  that  the  Evangelist 
intended  to  represent  the  multitudes  as  so  afflicted,  seems 
quite  impossible. 

It  is  most  remarkable  that,  although  this  casting  out  of 
demons  is  represented  in  the  Gospels  (and  even  in  their  echo 
in  Acts  X,  38)  as  the  main  activity  of  the  Jesus,  though  it  is 
the  principal  power  he  bestowed  on  the  Apostles,  yet  we  never 
hear  of  its  exercise.  The  passages  in  Acts  (v,  16  ;  viii,  7  ; 
xix,  12)  are  the  vaguest  and  merest  generalities — symbolic 
phrases  without  any  specific  historic  content.  It  cannot  be 
that  an  activity  of  such  supreme  significance  during  the  life 
of  the  Jesus,  and  of  special  endowment  conferred  on  his 
successors,  should  cease  immediately  and  permanently,  not 

^  According- to  Keim  (iii,  53  ;  see  p.  infra),  at  Jericho  the  curative  energy  of 
Jesus  was  at  it?  heig-ht,  "in  might  as  a  flame  of  fire";  but  Bacon  {The  Begin- 
nings of  Gospel  Story,  p.  146)  thinks  this  flame  had  sunk  low,  even  to  extinction, 
when  the  Jesus  journeyed  southward  from  GaUlee.  '*  The  course  of  events, 
therefore,  does  not  imperatively  demand  the  rekindling-  in  this  sporadic 
instance  of  the  flame  of  Jesus'  healing-  power,  so  far  from  the  scenes  of  its 
original  activity."  That  is,  one  degree's  depression  of  the  pole  annihilated 
the  miraculous  might  of  the  Saviour  !  And  precisely  where  Keim  found  the 
wonder-working  powers  of  the  Jesus  at  their  acme,  precisely  there  Bacon  finds 
them  quenched  and  pulseless  I 


ADDENDUM  II.  213 

upon  his  death,  but  even  before,  upon  his  entrance  into 
Judcea.  Had  the  treatment  of  such  diseases  been  any  part 
of  the  activity  of  the  Apostles,  we  should  certainly  have 
heard  of  it,  both  in  Acts  and  in  the  Epistles. 

What,  then,  is  the  explanation  ?  It  is  very  simple — 
namely  :  The  Synoptists  are  poets  and  symbolists,  but  the 
authors  of  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  have  definitely  laid 
aside  that  symbolism.  They  chose  to  state  the  propaganda 
in  more  direct,  literal,  and  unmetaphorical  terms,  and  less 
under  the  veil  of  symbolic  language.  Very  rarely,  as  in 
the  cases  mentioned,  the  author  of  Acts  drops  back  for  a 
moment  into  the  symbolic  phraseology  of  the  Synoptists. 

We  may  feel  sure,  then,  that  the  primitive  preachers  did 
not  exorcise,  and  did  not  pretend  to  do  so.  It  is  a  great 
relief  to  know  that  our  noble  religion  did  not  have  as  its 
primal  form  of  activity  the  magical  and  temporal  alleviation 
of  the  condition  of  hopeless  defectives.  That  a  religion  that 
made  such  charlatanry  one  of  its  main  features  could  conquer 
the  intelligence  of  the  Roman  Empire  stands  greatly  in  need 
of  proof.  Herewith  it  is  not  forgotten  that  even  Schmiedel 
has  sought  to  show  that  such  healing  of  demoniacs  prevailed 
in  the  early  days  of  the  Church;  and  it  is  not  denied  that 
some  enthusiasts  may  sometimes  have  undertaken  some  such 
cure,  and  even,  under  imaginable  conditions,  with  partial  or 
apparent  success.  Such  exceptional  cases,  sometimes  hard 
or  impossible  to  understand,  may  occasionally  be  constated. 
But  that  they  cut  practically  no  figure  in  the  elder  Church  is 
the  thing  that  is  plainest  to  see  from  Schmiedel's  own  testi- 
monies.    Let  us  hear  them  in  detail. 

Schmiedel  says  {E,  B.,  "Gospels,"  §  144) : — 

According  to  Mark  vi,  5  /  (see  §  140^  [which  we  have  already  con- 
sidered, p.  201]),  we  are  to  understand  that  Jesus  healed  where  he 
found  faith.  This  power  is  so  strongly  attested  throughout  the  first 
and  second  centuries  that,  in  view  of  the  spiritual  greatness  of  Jesus 
and  the  imposing  character  of  his  personality  [all  of  which  is 
imaginary],  it  would  be  indeed  difficult  to  deny  it  to  him.  Even  the 
Pharisees  do  not  deny  his  miracles  of  healing  [only  "  casting  out 
demons  "  is  mentioned  in  the  texts],  though  they  traced  them  to  a 
compact  [?]  with  Beelzebub  (Mark  iii,  22  ;  Matthew  ix,  34,  xii,  24  ; 
Lukexi,  15).  According  to  Matthew  xii,  27= Luke  xi,  19,  the  disciples 
of  the  Pharisees  also  wrought  such  miracles  [Jewish  proselytism  ?]  ; 


214  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

the  man  who  followed  not  with  the  disciples  of  Jesus  cast  out  devils 
[but  only  "In  thy  name  "]  (Mark  Ix,  38-40=Luke  Ix,  49/.) ;  the  same  Is 
said  of  those  whom  in  Matthew  vil,  22/.,  Jesus  rejects  In  his  final  judg- 
ment [these,  too,  "  cast  out  demons  "  "in  thy  name" — i.e.,  overthrew 
idolatry  by  preaching  the  Jesus-cult].  Paul  asserts  that  a  like  power 
was  possessed  by  himself  (2  Cor.  xil,  12  ;  Romans  xv,  19)  and  by 
other  Christians  ( I  Cor.  xii,  8-1 1,  28);  Justin  mentions  castlngs-out 
of  devils  {ApoL  26,  Dial.  30,  35,  39,  76,  85) ;  so  also  Tertullian 
{Apol.  23),  Irenaeus  (li,  31  /,  Eus.  H.E.  5  ),  and  Quadratus  (Eus. 
^•E.,  iv,  3,). 

Then  in  a  footnote  : — 

As  for  Josephus,  cp.  B.J.  ii,  8g,  vli,  63,  Ant.  Ill,  11 3,  vIII,  2^,  and 
c.Ap.  I31  ;  for  Pliny,  N.H.  3O2  ;  for  Luclan,  PhiJops.  16 J.  Accord- 
ing to  Tacitus  {Hist.  451),  Vespasian  effected  several  wonderful  cures 
(cp.  above,  col.  1456). 

Certainly  a  formidable  array  of  authorities,  which  might 
indeed  be  greatly  lengthened.  We  need  consider  only  the 
supposed  testimonies  to  literal  casting-out  of  demons.  So  far 
as  the  Gospels  are  concerned,  the  remarks  we  have  inserted  in 
brackets  [  ]  are  sufficient  to  show  that  there  is  no  such  testi- 
mony at  all ;  the  passages  are  far  more  naturally  understood  of 
the  banishing  of  idolatry  by  preaching  the  Jesus.  As  to  Paul, 
we  have  already  seen  that  he  is  never  named  in  connection 
with  such  exorcism,  nor  does  he  ever  name  it.  The  first 
passage  cited  (2  Cor.  xii,  12)  merely  declares:  ''Truly  the 
signs  of  an  apostle  were  wrought  among  you  in  all  patience, 
by  signs  and  wonders  and  powers."  In  Romans  xv,  19 
(which  I  have  proved  [see  J.  B.  Z.,  1901,  129-157  ;  1902, 
1 17-169]  to  be  a  late  accession  to  the  epistle),  the  language 
is  still  vaguer — "in  the  power  of  signs  and  wonders." 
There  is  no  hint  of  exorcism. 

In  I  Cor.  xii,  8-1 1,  various  "gifts  of  the  Spirit"  are 
mentioned,  among  them  "gifts  of  healing";  also  in  verse  28, 
"gifts  of  healing" — in  both  cases  without  further  specifica- 
tion.    Plainly  nothing  can  be  inferred. 

Leaping  now  over  nearly  one  hundred  years  of  silence, 
in  Justin's  ApoL  26  we  read  :  "  That  also  after  the  ascent  of 
Christ  to  heaven  the  demons  sent  forth  certain  men  claiming 
themselves  to  be  gods  who  not  only  were  not  persecuted  by 
you,  but  were  even  adjudged  worthy  of  honours  :  as  a  certain 
Simon,  a  Samaritan  from  a  village  called  Gittas,  who  under 


ADDENDUM  II.  215 

Claudius  Csesar  by  the  art  of  inworking  demons,  having 
wrought  magic  powers  in  your  city  royal  Rome,  was 
esteemed  a  god  and  was  honoured  by  you  as  a  god  with  a 
statue,  which  statue  was  erected  in  the  Tiber  river  between 
two  bridges,  bearing  this  Roman  inscription  :  To  Simon 
God  Holy  (Simoni  Deo  Sancto)."  On  this  it  seems  enough 
to  remark,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  hints  nothing  about 
casting  out  demons,  and  even  if  it  did  it  would  prove 
nothing,  for  Justin  here  condemns  himself  unappealably. 
The  real  inscription  was  :  Semoni  Sanco  Deo.  Fidio  Sacrum 
Sex.  Pompeius.  S.  P.  F.  Col.  Mussianus  Quinquennalis 
Decur  Bidentalis  Donum.  Dedit. 

This  Semo,  whom  Justin  mistakes  for  Simon,  was  a 
Sabine  god  of  oaths  or  compacts  ('^sancus  a  sanciendo"), 
hence  also  called  "  Fidius  a  fide,"  and  had  no  more  to  do 
with  Simon  Magus  than  with  Simon  Peter.  Most  of  all, 
however,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  Justin  himself  considers 
demons  the  same  as  false  gods. 

This  fact  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  next  proof-text, 
Dial,  30 :  "'  For  from  the  demons,  which  are  alien  from  the 
worship  of  God,  whom  formerly  we  adored,  we  pray  God 
always  to  be  preserved  through  Jesus  Christ,  that  after 
conversion  to  God  we  may  be  blameless  through  him.  For 
him  we  call  Helper  and  Redeemer,  at  the  might  even  of 
whose  name  even  the  demons  tremble,  and  to-day  being 
exorcised  by  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Crucified  under 
Pontius  Pilate,  who  was  procurator  of  Judaea,  they  are 
subdued  ;  so  that  also  from  this  it  is  evident  to  all  that  his 
Father  has  given  him  such  power  that  even  the  demons  are 
subdued  by  his  name  and  the  dispensation  of  his  passion." 
Clearly  Justin  identifies  the  demons  with  the  heathen  gods, 
and  if  he  means  aught  else  by  the  exorcism  and  subduing  of 
these  demons  to  the  name  of  Jesus  than  the  downfall  of 
heathen  deities  before  the  preaching  of  the  Jesus,  it  is  only 
by  a  late  misapplication  of  the  old  familiar  phrase  "casting 
out  demons  "or  ''subjecting  demons  to  the  Jesus."  Mani- 
festly the  passage  cannot  be  quoted  as  witnessing  the  reality 
of  any  such  exorcism. 

The  next  citation  {DiaL  35)  does  not  mention  demons, 
but  only  "the  powers  that  even  now  proceed  from  his  name," 


2i6  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

whereon  it  seems  quite  needless  to  dwelL  Neither  does  the 
next  {Dial.  39),  but  merely  speaks  of  one  having  the  spirit 
of  healing  (6  Sc  mo-twc)?  perhaps  glancing  at  the  passage  in 
I  Cor.  xii,  8-1 1. 

In  Dial.  76 :  '*  And  now  we  that  believe  on  the  Jesus,  our 
Lord  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  have  all  the  demons 
and  evil  spirits  subdued  to  us,  exorcising  them."  Remember 
that  Justin  has  clearly  identified  these  demons  with  the 
heathen  gods,  and  you  perceive  that  this  passage  is  at  most 
a  rhetorical  flourish.  Had  anyone  pressed  the  Martyr  for 
an  illustration,  he  might  have  referred  to  some  conversion  in 
which  indeed  some  heathen  demon-god  was  overthrown  and 
cast  out  by  the  power  of  the  Jesus  (-cult). 

Lastly  {Dial.  85)  :  *'  For  by  the  name  of  him,  this  Son  of 
God  and  first  begotten  of  all  creation,  and  born  of  a  virgin 
and  made  passible  man  and  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate 
by  your  people,  who  died  and  rose  from  (the)  dead  and 
ascended  into  heaven,  every  demon  exorcised  is  conquered 
and  subdued.  But  if  you  exorcise  by  every  name  of  those 
among  you  that  have  been  kings,  or  just,  or  prophets,  or 
patriarchs,  none  of  the  demons  will  be  subdued  ;  but  if, 
however,  anyone  of  you  exorcise  by  the  God  of  Abraham 
and  God  of  Isaac  and  God  of  Jacob,  perhaps  it  will  be 
subdued.  But  already  I  have  said  that  your  exorcists,  by 
using  the  art  as  do  the  Gentiles,  exorcise  and  use  fumigations 
and  magic  ties."  I  have  quoted  this  long  passage  because 
it  is  the  strongest  in  Schmiedel's  list,  and  because  it  shows 
the  Apostles'  Creed  in  process  of  formation.  On  the  great 
significance  of  this  latter  this  is  not  the  place  to  enlarge. 

Now  it  must  not  be  supposed  for  a  moment  that  the 
present  writer  denies  or  calls  in  question  the  bare  fact  of 
exorcism  at  the  period  under  consideration.  The  word  itself 
is  a  witness  to  the  fact,  and  as  such  is  unimpeachable.  Yea, 
more,  the  immense  magic  literature  of  the  old  faiths,  the 
countless  incantations  and  conjurations,  bear  unequivocal 
testimony.  Chief  of  all,  certain  passages  to  which  the  writer 
has  called  repeated  attention  show  decisively  that  the  names 
"Jesus"  and  ''Nasarya"  were  actually  used  as  names  of 
deities  in  conjurations  at  an  extremely  early  date  in  the 
beginning  of  Christianity.     In  fact,  the  very  phrase,  "  In  the 


ADDENDUM  II.  217 

name  of  Jesus,"  bears  sure  witness,  as  Heitmueller  has  so 
admirably  set  forth,  to  the  use  of  that  great  name  as  a  magic 
spell.  That  it  should  have  been  used  for  exorcisms  of  demons 
as  well  as  for  other  purposes  is  antecedently  probable,  and  may 
be  fully  conceded.^  In  view  of  this  state  of  the  case,  it  seems 
not  unlikely  that  Justin's  formula,  rapidly  expanding  into  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  may  have  been  actually  pronounced  at  some 
exorcisms,  especially  as  we  know  that  the  spell  was  thought 
to  be  strengthened  by  such  quasi-historical  recitals.  Thus 
Origen  (C.  Cels,^  I,  vi) :  "For  they  seem  not  to  prevail  by 
enchantments,  but  by  the  name  of  Jesus  after  the  recital  of 
the  stories  concerning  him." 

On  the  other  hand,  this  very  formula  has  become  the 
creed  of  the  Church,  a  ceremony  of  admission  to  the  Church 
itself.  So  this  expulsion  of  demons  is  again  clearly  seen  to 
stand  in  the  most  intimate  relations  with  the  renunciation  of 
paganism  and  the  adoption  of  the  Jesus-cult.  That  such 
must  have  been  at  least  the  controlling  sense  and  use  among 
Christians  appears  quite  manifest  from  this  consideration, 
that  it  could  have  been  used  at  most  only  in  a  few  compara- 
tively exceptional  cases  of  exorcism  of  demoniacs,  whereas 
it  must  have  been  used  in  thousands  of  thousands  of  cases  of 
conversion  from  paganism.  Even  then,  when  we  allow  all 
possible  force  to  these  words  of  Justin,  they  still  fail  to  point 
towards  actual  possession  and  exorcism  as  a  certain,  or  at 
\tdiSt  prominent y  fact  in  the  early  life  of  the  Church  ;  they  are 
found  in  connection  with  the  formal  renunciation  of  paganism 
and  acceptance  of  Christianity.  This  was  indeed  an  exorcism, 
but  an  exorcism  in  the  New  Testament  sense,  which  we  have 
already  found  necessary. 

*  Inasmuch  as  the  demon-worshipping  idolater  was  conceived  as  in  some 
sense  possessed — i.e.^  under  influence  of  his  demon — it  was  natural  for 
Christians,  especially  the  more  ignorant  (as  Origen  testifies),  to  ascribe 
physical  infirmities  of  idolaters  to  such  possession  ;  hence  it  became  quite 
as  natural  to  speak  of  all  manner  of  illness,  especially  mental,  as  completely 
healed  by  Jesus,  at  invocation  of  his  name — i.e.^  by  the  all-saving  monotheistic 
Jesus-cult.  Hence  such  forms  of  conception  and  expression,  no  matter  how 
frequent,  stand  not  in  discord  but  in  concord  with  our  understanding  of  New 
Testament  exorcisms,  whose  essence  is  this  :  expulsion  of  demons  by  Jesus  (and 
generally,  later,  in  his  name,  by  Christians)  is  to  be  understood  only  in  the 
religious  sense  of  conversion  from  polytheism,  to  the  Jesus-cult.  Compare 
I  Cor.  xii,  2,  3,  where  "  being  led  away  to  dumb  idols "  stands  in  sharp 
contrast  with  saying  "Jesus  is  Lord" — i.e.,  with  confession,  with  conversion. 


2i8  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

In  confirmation  of  this  view  we  may  make  still  further 
and  decisive  appeal  to  Justin  himself;  for  the  most  important 
passage  is  not  cited  by  Schmiedel,  possibly  because  found  in 
the  Second  Apology,  6  :  "  But  Jesus  has  the  name  and  signifi- 
cance both  ot  man  and  of  Saviour.  For  also  a  man,  as  we 
said  before,  was  he  made,  according  to  the  counsel  of  the 
God  and  Father,  brought  forth  for  the  sake  of  believing  men 
and  for  dissolution^  of  the  demons."  Here,  then,  the  nature 
and  mission  of  Jesus  are  defined.  He  is  a  Saviour,  as  the  name 
indicates.  From  what  does  he  save?  From  demons.  Whom 
does  he  save?  Believers.  Here,  then,  all  doubt  appears  set 
at  rest.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  understand  this  salvation  of 
believers  from  demons  as  referring  to  the  cure  of  a  few 
sporadic  demoniacs.  Justin  is  defining  the  general  signifi- 
cance of  the  Jesus  as  saviour,  and  he  defines  it  as  for  the  sake 
of  believers  and  for  the  overthrow  of  the  demons.  It  seems 
certain  that  this  must  mean  the  conversion  of  heathen 
idolaters  to  the  Jesus-cult.  Now  notice  the  remarkable 
terms  in  which  he  further  specifies  and  describes  such 
conversion  :  "  And  now  you  can  learn  from  what  takes 
place  under  your  own  eyes.  For  many  possessed  by  demons 
throughout  the  whole  world  and  in  your  city,  many  of  our 
men,  the  Christians,  exorcising  by  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
the  Crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  by  all  the  other  exorcists 
and  enchanters  and  magicians  unhealed,  have  healed  and 
still  now  heal,  annulling  and  expelling  the  demons  obsessing 
the  men." 

Here  the  distinctive  activity  of  the  Christians  is  described 
as  this  expulsion  of  demons.  That  such,  in  the  literal  sense 
of  the  words,  could  have  been  the  technical  and  professional 
calling  of  Christians  in  Rome  near  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  appears  incredible.  There  was  but  one  thing  that 
could  have  been  ascribed  to  them  as  their  peculiar  vocation, 
and  that  was  the  conversion  of  men  to  Christianity,  to  the 
worship  of  the  Jesus.  This,  then,  is  the  expulsion  of  demons, 
considered  by  the  Martyr.  The  phrase  *'  not  healed  by  all  the 
other  exorcists,"  etc.,  would  seem  to  refer  to  the  multitude  of 
creeds  and  cults  with  which  Rome  abounded. 

'  Or  expulsion,  eTri  /caTaXj/cret  =  ad  eversionem — Otto. 


ADDENDUM  II.  219 

Moreover,  this  notion  and  designation  of  heathen  gods  as 
demons  is  not  occasional,  but  regular,  and  even  universal  in 
Justin.  He  declares  them  to  be  sons  of  wicked  angels,  to 
have  the  Devil,  Satan,  the  Serpent  as  Prince,  to  demand 
victims  and  worship  from  evil  livers,  to  enslave  men,  to 
appear  under  simulated  forms  and  names  preserved  in  fanes 
and  temples,  corrupting  and  affrighting  by  prodigies,  to  be 
called  gods,  each  choosing  his  own  name,  to  send  forth 
heretics  intent  on  turning  men  from  God  and  Christ,  to 
calumniate  Christians,  to  flee  from  the  power  of  men,  and  to 
be  subdued  by  the  name  of  Jesus.  On  nearly  all  these  points 
Justin  voices  the  general  sentiment  of  the  Christians.  Nor 
was  he  unsupported  in  this  matter  by  the  heathen  themselves, 
such  as  Porphyry,  the  bitter  antagonist  of  Christianity.  We 
may  say,  then,  with  renewed  and  augmented  confidence  that 
by  the  expulsion  of  demons  Justin  Martyr  meant,  in  general, 
if  not  indeed  in  every  case,  the  overthrow  of  polytheism  by 
conversion  to  the  worship  of  the  Jesus. 

We  pass  now  to  the  other  authorities  cited.  In  Tertullian^s 
Apologeticum  (xxii,  xxiii)  we  find  set  forth  his  ideas  as  to  the 
pagan  gods,  demons,  and  evil  spirits.  Already  in  Cap.  xxi 
he  has  defined  the  mission  of  Christ,  not  like  Numa's,  to 
temper  boors  and  savages  to  humanity  by  frightening  them 
with  a  multitude  of  gods  to  be  propitiated,  but  to  open  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth  the  eyes  of  men  already  highly 
cultured  and  deceived  by  their  very  refinement  {sed  qui  iavi 
expolitos  et  ipsa  urbanitate  deceptos  in  agnitioneTn  veritatis 
ocularet).  We  must  surely  admire  the  largeness  and  justness 
of  his  view.  It  needs  no  argument  that  this  means  that 
Numa  fulfilled  his  mission  by  the  passing  expedient  of  pagan 
worship,  and  this  the  Christ  came  to  remove  and  abolish. 
Precisely  so  (as  we  have  seen)  thought  Justin,  who  preferred 
the  symbolic  expression  *^  dissolution  of  demons."  Tertullian 
now  proceeds  (Cap.  xxii)  to  declare  : — 

And  so  we  say  there  are  certain  spiritual  substances.     Nor  is  the 

name  new.     Philosophers  know  (there  are)  demons But  how  from 

certain  angels  corrupt  of  their  own  free  will  a  more  corrupt  brood  of 
demons  issued,  condemned  of  God  with  the  authors  of  their  brood 
and  with  him  we  called  their  chief  (Satan),  in  the  sacred  Scriptures 

is  set  forth  in  order Their  business  is  the  ruin  of  man.     So  from 

the  first,  spiritual  malice  has  been  aimed  at  the  downfall  of  man 


220  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

with  various  errors,  whereof  that  Is  the  worst  whereby  It  commends 

these  gods  to  men's  minds  entrapped  and  ensnared Every  spirit 

is   winged,    both   angel   and   demon Their    speed    Is    accounted 

divinity Or  if  both  angels  and  demons  do  just  what  your  gods 

do,  where   then  is  the  pre-eminence  of  divinity? Is  it  not  more 

reasonable  to  assume  that  it  is  they  themselves  (demons)  who  make 

themselves  gods than   that   the  gods  are  equals  of  angels  and 

demons  ? A  difference  of  races  is  distinguished,  I  suppose,  so  that 

by  their  temples  you  esteem  as  gods  whom  elsewhere  you  call  not 

gods But  thus  far,  words  ;  now  comes  the  demonstration  of  the 

thing  Itself  whereby  we  show  the  quality  to  be  the  same  under  either 
name.  Let  anyone  be  led  out  there  before  your  tribunals,  who,  it  Is 
settled,  is  driven  by  a  demon.  That  spirit  bidden  speak  by  any 
Christian  will  confess  of  a  truth  himself  a  demon  as  elsewhere  (he) 

falsely  (confesses  himself)  a  lord  (god).     Or let  that  same  celestial 

Virgin  (Carthaginian  Juno?),  promlser  of  showers,  that  same 
^sculapius,  discoverer  of  medicines,  ready  to  minister  another  day 
(of  life)  to  moribund  Socordlus  and  Tenatius  and  Asclepiodotus 
— unless  not  daring  to  lie  to  a  Christian  they  confess  themselves 
demons,  shed  on  the  spot  the  blood  of  that  most  insolent  Christian. 

So  it  glimmers  through  the  nebulous  rhetoric  of  Ter- 
tullian  that  he  held  a  god  to  be  only  a  demon  worshipped 
in  a  temple.  Moreover,  he  declares  that  one  possessed  by  a 
demon  would  confess  himself  a  demon  if  interrogated  by  a 
Christian.  The  meaning  of  the  closing  passage  is  almost 
hopeless  ;  it  may  possibly  refer  to  some  incident  of  which 
we  have  no  knowledge.  Says  Oehler  :  "  I  have  restored  by 
conjecture  this  passage  almost  desperate  for  the  reason  that 
to  what  story  Tertullian  is  referring  is  absolutely  unknown." 
Plainly  no  argument  can  rest  on  such  a  passage.  Perhaps 
there  was  no  such  incident  at  all.  TertuUian's  boast  that  the 
possessed  interrogated  by  a  Christian  would  confess  himself 
a  demon  perhaps  means  only  that  some  person  under  some 
such  conditions  had  been  or  might  be  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity, had  renounced  paganism  and  accepted  the  Jesus- 
cult.  We  must  remember  that  Tertullian  is  a  prince  of 
rhetoricians,  to  whom  plain,  straightforward  speech  is  almost 
impossible.  After  much  more  declamation,  little  to  the  point 
in  this  argument,  he  declares  :  "  Why  all  our  domination  and 
power  over  them  comes  from  nomination  of  Christ Fear- 
ing Christ  in  God  and  God  in  Christ,  they  are  subdued  to  the 
servants  of  God  and  Christ."  This  seems  to  be  only  vague 
declamation,  for  which  perhaps  the  only  basis  is  the  actual 


ADDENDUM  II.  221 

conversion  to  Christianity  of  zealous  heathen  devotees.  We 
note  that  Tertullian  claims  nothing  for  himself  personally, 
and  attests  nothing  as  of  his  own  observation.  Our  suspicion 
is  strengthened  by  his  following  remark :  "  Finally  these 
testimonies  of  your  gods  are  wont  to  make  Christians  ;  in 
believing  them  as  much  as  possible  we  believe  in  Christ  the 
Lord."  In  view  of  Tertullian's  notorious  sacrifice  of  all  else 
to  oratorical  effect,  it  seems  hard  to  feel  sure  that  he  had  in 
mind  aught  else  but  conversions,  sometimes  of  neurasthenics, 
to  Christianity. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  his  estimate  of  demons  finds 
ample  confirmation  and  reiteration  in  the  pages  of  early 
Christian  literature.  Irenaeus  (ii,  4,  6)  declares  that  "all 
things  are  subject  to  the  appellation  of  the  Highest  and 
Omnipotent ;  and  by  invocation  of  it  even  before  the  coming 
of  our  Lord  men  were  saved,  both  from  spirits   most  vile, 

and   all   demons   diverse,    and    every   apostasy And   as, 

though  they  have  not  seen  him,  nevertheless  all  things  are 
subject  to  the  name  of  our  Lord  (Jesus?  or  the  Emperor?), 
so  likewise  (to)  his  who  made  all  things  and  established 
(them)  by  a  word,  since  no  other  is  there  than  he  who  made 
the  world.  And  therefore  Jews  even  till  now  by  this  very 
adjuration  put  demons  to  flight,  since  all  fear  the  invocation 
of  him  that  made  them."  Here  Irenaeus  seems  to  have  in 
mind  the  prophetic  passage,  "  Whosoever  shall  call  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  delivered "  (Joel  ii,  32).  Such 
invocation  was  an  acknowledgment  of  the  god  invoked, 
hence  it  came  to  be  associated  intimately  with  conversion  to 
his  worship.  However,  Jewish  magic  and  incantation  are, 
of  course,  not  hereby  denied.  But  nothing  is  yet  made  out 
as  to  actual  exorcisms,  distinct  from  conversions,  among 
early  Christians.  On  turning  to  Schmiedel's  reference 
(ii,  32,  4 ;  Harvey,  i,  375),  we  find  the  matter  somewhat 
cleared  up.  Speaking  of  the  spiritual  gifts  possessed  by  the 
Christians,  he  declares  :  ''  For  some  drive  out  demons  firmly 
and  truly,  so  that  often  those  cleansed  from  the  evil  spirits 
both  believe  and  are  in  the  church." 

Here,  then,  the  secret  seems  to  have  escaped.  The  con- 
nection between  casting  out  demons  and  converting  to  belief 
is  set  forth  as  so  close  and  intimate  that  there  seems  hardly 


222  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

a  doubt  that  the  onQ  is  but  a  variant  of  the  other.  To  be 
sure,  Irenseus  does  say  *'  often,"  and  does  seem  to  make  a  dis- 
tinction ;  but  this  is  no  more  than  we  should  expect :  it  is  but  a 
part  of  the  general  process  of  literalisation,  of  transforming 
spiritual  symbols  into  material  events,  which  he,  along  with 
"  Ignatius,"  did  so  much  to  further,  and  which  the  Old  Catholic 
Church  has  to  thank  in  such  large  measure  for  its  existence.^ 

In  any  case,  this  seems  a  very  dangerous  passage  for 
Professor  Schmiedel.  At  the  most  and  best  it  could  prove 
nothing  for  his  cause,  seeing  that  immediately  after  we  read 
that  '*  even  now"  ''dead  men  were  raised  and  remained  with 
us  for  many  years."  Since  he  will  certainly  reject  this  state- 
ment as  incredible,  in  spite  of  Harvey's  note,  what  credence 
can  he  put  in  the  immediately  foregoing? 

Most  illuminative  in  this  connection  is  the  following 
passage  from  the  learned  work  of  Carl  Schmidt  on  Gnosiische 
Schriften  in  koptischer  Sprache^  p.  510:  ''This  reminds  us 
only  too  distinctly  of  the  exorcisms  which  in  the  olden  time 
played  a  highly  significant  role  at  Baptism,  inasmuch  as  all 
candidates  therefore  were  thought  to  be  possessed  of  demons 
{Tduflinge)y^  in  consequence  whereof  there  was  in  fact  a  class 
of  exorcists  standing  in  high  repute."  In  this  deep  descent 
from  the  serene  heights  of  the  primitive  propaganda  it 
seems  impossible  not  to  recognise  the  fact  that  Christianisa- 
tion  was  originally  conceived  as  a  casting-out-of-demons,  as 
a  conversion  from  paganism  to  the  worship  of  the  Jesus,  the 
Saviour-God. 

The  fact  is  that  the  more  spiritual  Christians  even  of  that 
day — commonly  called  Gnostics  as  a  term  of  reproach,  though 
Clemens  of  Alexandria  calls  the  Christians  Gnostics  by  way 
of  honour — understood  perfectly  well  that  all  these  healings 
referred  primarily  and  properly  to  diseases  not  of  the  body, 

^  Hence,  indeed,  the  testimony  of  all  such  literalists,  even  if  far  more 
explicit,  could  really  prove  nothing  against  our  thesis  ;  for  at  most  it  would 
attest  only  their  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  text,  but  could  never 
prove  their  interpretation  to  be  correct.  Understanding  demon-expulsion, 
like  the  rest  of  the  Gospels,  literally,  and  recalling  that  the  disciples  were  to 
do  even  greater  deeds  (John  xiv,  12),  it  was  almost  positively  necessary  for 
them  to  bear  some  witness  to  such  literal  exorcisms.  That  their  witness  is 
nevertheless  so  extremely  vague  looks  like  a  clear  indication  that  there  was 
really  naught  of  the  kind  to  witness  at  all. 

'  Italics  are  the  present  writer's. 


ADDENDUM  IL  223 

but  of  the  soul,  and  taught  so  explicitly.  For  their  insight 
and  their  candour  they  received  sharp  rebuke  at  the  hands  of 
Irenaeus  :  "  But  so  much  they  lack  of  raising  the  corpse,  as 
the  Lord  raised,  and  the  apostles  by  prayer,  and  often  in  the 

brotherhood  for  some  necessity (they  hold),  however,  that 

resurrection  from  the  dead  is  recognition  of  the  truth  that  is 
taught  by  them  "  (II,  xxxi,  2  ;  Harv.,  II,  xlviii,  2).  Similarly, 
but  of  course  more  violently,  Tertullian,  jDe  Resurr.^  19  : 
"  Resurrection  also  of  the  dead,  openly  announced,  they 
distort  into  an  imaginary  sense,  averring  that  even  death 
itself  is  to  be  understood  spiritually."  As  at  so  many  other 
points,  modern  thought  here  also  rejects  the  orthodox  and 
adopts  the  Gnostic  interpretation. 

Professor  Schmiedel  next  refers  to  Eus.,  H.  E.^  v,  7. 
This,  however,  is  only  an  imperfect  quotation  by  Eusebius  of 
the  foregoing  passage  from  Irenaeus,  and  hence  cannot 
detain  us.  His  next  reference  is  also  to  Eusebius,  H,  E.y 
iv,  3,  2,  a  quotation  by  the  historian  from  Quadratus'  "  Apology 
for  our  religion  "  addressed  to  ^lius  Adrian.  It  declares 
only  that  "  the  works  of  our  Saviour  were  always  present, 
for  they  were  genuine — those  that  were   healed   and   those 

that  were  raised  from  the  dead so  that  some  of  them  lived 

even  unto  our  day."  Nothing  is  said  of  any  other  works  but 
the  Saviour's,  and  nothing  is  said  about  demons  at  all. 

The  next  citation  is  of  Josephus,  B,  J,^  ii,  86,  part  of  the 
famous  description  of  the  Essenes,  but  containing  no  allusion 
to  demons  or  exorcisms  or  any  kind  of  wonders.  But  it  is 
said  they  search  out  medicinal  roots  and  peculiarities  of 
stones  for  treatment  of  diseases,  which  brings  us  to  the 
following  citation  (B.  y.,  vii,  63) — a  trivial  story  of  a  kind  of 
rue,  large  as  a  fig-tree,  that  had  lasted  from  the  time  of 
Herod,  and  would  have  lasted  much  longer  had  it  not  been 
cut  down  ;  and  of  a  root  called  Baaras,  from  its  place  of 
growth,  in  a  valley  near  Macherus  on  the  north — a  root 
miraculous  in  every  way,  but  valuable  only  "  because  even  if 
only  brought  near  the  sick  it  quickly  drives  out  the  so-called 
demons  (and  these  are  the  spirits  of  evil  men),  entering  into 
the  living  and  killing  such  as  fail  of  help."  All  this  story 
can  prove,  if  it  can  prove  anything,  is  only  what  has  never  been 
in  dispute — namely,  that  magicians  did  try  to  exorcise  persons 


224  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

supposed  to  be  possessed  of  demons.  Josephus  regards  these 
latter  as  spirits  of  wicked  men — not  as  divinities,  as  did  the 
Christians.  By  this  testimony  the  question  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment conception  of  casting  out  demons  is  not  touched. 

Passing  by  the  next  reference  (Jos.,  AnL^  iii,  113),  which 
speaks  solely  of  certain  uncleanness,  and  not  of  demons,  we 
come  to  the  classic  passage  (Ant,  viii,  25).  It  tells  how 
"  God  taught  Solomon  the  art  against  demons  for  help  and 
healing  unto  men  ";  how  Solomon  "  left  behind  him  tricks 
of  exorcosis  whereby  indwelling  demons  are  driven  out  so  as 
never  to  return  " — a  method  valid  to  this  day,  for  he  (Josephus) 
had  himself  seen  a  certain  one  of  his  countrymen,  by  name 
Eleazar,  who,  in  presence  of  Vespasian  and  all  his  host,  by 
applying  a  ring,  having  a  Solomonic  root  under  its  seal,  to 
the  nostrils  of  a  demoniac,  draw  out  the  demon  through  the 
nostrils,  who  would  then  upset  a  basin  of  water  at  Eleazar's 
command  to  let  all  know  that  he  had  really  gone  out.  What 
trickery  was  here  we  know  not,  nor  whether  the  whole  story 
be  not  a  silly  invention  ;  in  any  case  and  at  most,  like  the  pre- 
ceding citation,  it  merely  proves  the  undisputed,  but  does  not 
touch  the  question  of  New  Testament  expulsion  of  demons. 

In  the  last  citation  (C  Ap,,  i,  31)  Josephus  is  defending 
Moses  against  Manetho,  and  seems  to  make  no  mention  of 
demons. 

Simply  to  make  the  story  more  complete,  we  proceed  to  con- 
sider the  other  references.  In  Pliny  (Nat  Hist,,  302)  we  find 
the  merest  mention  of  **  another  class  {factio)  of  magic  derived 
from  Moses  and  lannes  and  Lotapes  and  Jews,  but  many 
thousand  years  after  Zoroaster."  In  Tacitus  {Hist,,  iv,  81) 
we  find  a  cock-and-bull  story  of  how  Vespasian  in  Alexandria, 
after  consultation  with  physicians  who  assured  him  it  was 
worth  trying,  restored  sight  to  a  blind  man  by  his  own 
imperial  spittle,  applied  as  salve  to  the  eyes,  and  a  feeble 
{aeger)  hand  to  strength  by  tramping  on  it  with  his  Csesarean 
foot.  Tacitus  adds  contemptuously  :  "  Persons  who  were 
present  even  tell  both  tales  now  after  there  is  no  reward  for 
lying."     Comment  seems  needless. 

Finally,  we  are  referred  to  Lucian  {Philopseudes ,  16).  In 
this  delicious  piece  of  satire  on  credulity  Lucian  makes  Ion, 
among  others,  tell  lie  after  lie  of  Munchhausen  proportions 


ADDENDUM  II.  225 

concerning  the  feats  of  magicians  ;  one  of  these  is  about  "  the 
Syrian   from  Palestine,"  who,  for  a   suitable  consideration, 
under  impressive  circumstances  at  full  moon,  will  draw  forth 
from  an  epileptic  a  demon  speaking  Greek  or  barbarian,  as 
the  case  may  be.     Ion  himself  had  seen  such  a  demon  come 
forth,  black  and  sooty  of  complexion.     Tychiades  takes  the 
history  with  grains  of  salt,  remembering  that,  according  to 
Plato,  the  senses  are  deceptive.     As  already  said,  this  lie  is 
drawn  out  of  a  web  of  lies,  the  absurdest  that  Lucian  could 
invent.     It   seems   to   attest  that  Lucian    regarded   tales   of 
demoniacal  possession  and  exorcism  as  atrocious  falsehoods. 
But  still,  you  say,  there  were  such  tales.     Certainly  ;  that 
has  already  been  admitted.     But  the  tales  are  always  told  as 
rare  prodigies,  and  are  ridiculed  by  the  intelligent.     In  all 
this  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  first  Christians  meant  any 
such  charlatanry  by  their  expulsion  of  demons,  which  all  the 
indications  show  was  a  symbolic  expression  for  the  overthrow 
of  paganism,   for  conversion  to  the  Jesus-cult.     Though  it 
may  be  highly  probable  that  some  of  a  magic  turn  did  use 
the  name  of  Jesus  to  exorcise  demons  in  the  material  and 
medical  sense,  yet  such  was  not  the  main  or  prevailing  sense 
among  early   Christians,    who    must    have    been    thinking 
principally  of  spiritual   and    not   of  physical   ailments  and 
impotence.      To  be  sure,  as   already   said,    the   descriptive 
imagery  and  the  dramatic  colouring  may  have  been  borrowed 
from   such   clinical    cases   of  epilepsy   and    lunacy  ;    but   it 
remains  none  the  less  certain  that  the  Evangelists,  in  repre- 
senting Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  as  thronged  with  demons, 
whereas  in  Judsea  there  were  none,  were  thinking,  not  of  the 
Galilean  conditions    as    insanitary  compared  with    Judsean, 
but  of  the  multiform  heathen  worship  that  prevailed  there  as 
opposed  to  the  monotheism  of  Judasa. 

Thus  far  it  has  been  tacitly  assumed,  as  universally 
admitted,  that  Galilee  was,  at  least  in  large  part,  pagan. 
Nor  does  it  now  seem  to  call  for  any  argument.  Says  Rabbi 
Hirsch,  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopcedia,  v,  554  :  "  As  early  as 
Old  Testament  times  the  population  of  this  region  was 
greatly  mixed  ;    and  it  became  more  so  after  the  downfall 

of   the    Ephraimitic    kingdom Undoubtedly  many  Jews 

subsequently  emigrated   to  that   blessed    land,  so  that  the 


226  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

population  became  predominantly  Jewish,  as  is  described 
in  the  New  Testament  and  by  Josephus."  The  word  ''pre- 
dominantly "  might  possibly  give  pause,  but  we  may  let  it 
stand  ;  ratios  are  here  not  exactly  determinable.  It  is  enough 
to  quote  one  other  sentence  from  the  learned  Rabbi  :  "  The 
inhabitants,  partly  pagan,  partly  Jewish,  are  said  to  have 
been  quarrelsome  and  of  a  disobliging  disposition  (Ned.y  48^/ 
Tosef.,  Git.  vi)."  In  the  Talmud  {Shah.,  14b,  ipa)  it  is 
declared  that  the  ''  Land  of  the  Nations  "  (Erez  ha-Ammim), 
which  can  hardly  be  aught  else  than  the  Biblical  "  Circuit  of 
the  Nations  "  (Gelil  ha-Goyim),  is  unclean.  This  point  may, 
then,  be  regarded  as  settled. 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  Gospels,  in  describing 
the  victorious  march  of  the  Jesus(-cult)  from  town  to  town, 
from  city  to  city,  were  thinking  solely  of  the  region  around 
the  Sea  of  Galilee.  By  no  means  !  They  had  in  mind  the 
triumphant  progress  of  the  new  religion  throughout  the 
whole  circumMediterranean  empire  ;  but  with  true  dramatic 
instinct  for  the  unity  of  place  they  symbolised  this  heathen 
world  by  that  region  best  known  to  them,  where  all  faiths  and 
bloods  had  from  time  immemorial  been  seething  together,  by 
"Galilee  of  the  Gentiles." 


ADDENDUM  III. 


^^  Blessed  is  he   who   is   not  offended  in   mg "   {i.e.^    in    my   unpretentious 
simplicity).— SCHMIEDEL. 

Professor  Schmiedel  himself  mentions  two  great  facts  as 
explaining  the  impression  made  by  the  Jesus — that  he  "  had 
compassion  for  the  multitude  and  that  he  preached  with 
power  (more  strictly,  "  as  having  authority  "),  not  as  the 
scribes."  It  seems  hard  to  detect  "  unpretentious  simplicity  " 
in  one  that  speaks  ''as  having  authority";  plainly,  he  is 
represented  as  more  pretentious  than  the  scribes,  who  have 
no  great  repute  for  over-modesty.  The  multitudes  were 
astounded  at  his  teaching — why  ?  Because  he  was  so  simple 
and  unpretentious  ?    Far  from  it !    It  was  the  assumption,  the 


ADDENDUM  III.  227 

pretension,  the  exercise  of  supreme  power  that  confounded 
them  and  made  them  ask :  "  What  is  this  ?  New  doctrine 
authoritative  !  Even  the  spirits,  the  unclean,  he  enjoins,  and 
they  obey  him "  (Mark  i,  22,  27).  This,  too,  at  the  very 
beginning  of  his  ministry — no  simple,  unpretentious,  unob- 
trusive preliminaries,  no  gradual  unfolding,  no  cautious, 
tentative  preparation,  no  insensible  dawn  and  development 
of  the  prophetic  or  Messianic  consciousness.  The  voice  falls 
direct  from  heaven.  The  divine  doctrine  leaps  down  from 
the  throne  of  the  Most  High,  panoplied  in  celestial  armour, 
and  hurls  into  instant  flight  the  whole  legion  of  pagan 
demons,  of  heathen  gods.  The  notions  of  simplicity  and 
unpretentiousness  are  absolutely  excluded,  and  even  reversed, 
in  the  Marcan  representation. 

But  did  he  not  "  compassionate  the  multitudes"?  Was 
not  that  simple  and  unpretentious?  These,  indeed,  seem  to 
be  queer  epithets  to  apply  to  compassion,  nor  are  they  any- 
where hinted  in  the  texts.  Much  more  important,  however, 
is  the  question,  Why  this  compassion  ?  The  answer  is  instruc- 
tive :  "  Because  they  were  mangled  and  abandoned — as  sheep 
having  no  shepherd."  Hereto  Mark  adds  most  luminously  : 
"And  he  began  to  teach  them  much";  Matthew  and  Luke, 
even  more  distinctly,  make  the  Jesus  comment  on  the  situation 
thus  ;  "  The  harvest  is  great,  but  the  labourers  few ;  pray, 
therefore,  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  that  he  send  out  labourers 
into  his  harvest."  It  seems  almost  superfluous  to  explain 
such  language.  Can  anyone  be  so  naive  as  to  suppose  that 
the  writers  are  here  speaking  of  literal  multitudes  literally 
following  the  Jesus  round  the  rocky  shores  of  Galilee?  The 
author  of  i  Peter  ii,  25,  knows  much  better ;  for,  writing  to 
the  ''elect  strangers  of  dispersion,"  he  tells  them  :  **  Ye  were 
as  sheep  wandering,  but  are  restored  now  unto  the  Shepherd 
and  Bishop  of  your  souls."    Compare  Clement,  cited  on  p.  51. 

The  case,  indeed,  seems  clear  as  day.  The  multitudes  are 
the  wanderers  away  from  the  true  worship  of  God,  whether 
Jew  or  pagan  ;  these  it  is  the  mission  of  the  Jesus-cult  to 
restore.  They  are  likened  to  a  flock  of  unsheltered  sheep 
dispersed  and  mangled  by  dogs  and  wolves.  How  are  they 
to  be  gathered  and  healed  ?  Only  by  instruction,  by  the  "  new 
doctrine."     Mark  represents  the  Jesus  himself  as  teaching; 


228  THE  PILLARS  OF  SCHMIEDEL 

Matthew  and  Luke  refine  upon  this,  and  introduce  a  prayer  for 
the  help  of  workers  in  the  great  harvest.  It  is  quite  ridiculous 
to  suppose  that  this  great  harvest  consisted  of  throngs  from 
city  and  village  that  were  feebly  following  up  the  peregrina- 
tions of  the  Jesus.  Elsewhere  this  **  harvest "  is  used  to 
include  all  humanity,  but  in  a  sterner  sense.  Here  the  term 
refers  clearly  to  the  great  mass  of  men  who  had  strayed 
from  the  true  worship,  to  which  they  were  to  be  restored  by 
the  new  propaganda,  by  the  vigorous  proclamation  every- 
where of  the  Jesus-cult.  The  prevailing  imagination  of  the 
Jesus  sitting  on  some  mountain^side,  discoursing  with  his 
disciples  grouped  around  him,  while  far  and  near  are  strewn 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  fainting  Galilean  peasants,  may 
indeed  be  pictorial,  and  may  well  enough  employ  the  pencil 
of  the  artist  or  amuse  the  fancy  of  children  ;  but  it  is  quite 
impossible  as  an  historic  situation,  and  is  wholly  unworthy 
of  the  critical  sense  of  grown-up  men. 

The  verb  "compassionate,"'  used  some  eight  times  of 
the  Jesus,  is  very  significant,  being  the  principal  one  of  the 
extremely  few  terms  anywhere  used  to  attribute  human 
feeling  to  the  God.  Its  comparatively  frequent  use  has  gone 
far  to  shape  the  popular  idea  that  the  Gospels  represent  him 
as  of  a  peculiarly  gentle,  tender,  merciful,  and  sympathetic 
nature — a  notion  that  modern  sentimentalism  embraces  with 
great  eagerness  and  with  little  demand  for  careful  grounding. 
Now,  it  is  true  that  the  Gospels  do  thus  ascribe  to  their  hero 
**  compassion  ";  but  it  is  the  compassion  of  God,  not  of  man, 
just  as  the  Mohammedan  prays  continually  to  God  as  "Allah, 
the  Merciful,  the  Compassionate."  The  Greek  verb,  prac- 
tically peculiar  to  the  New  Testament,  is  simply  a  Hebraism 
translating  the  Old  Testament  r-^-m,  which  (in  the  sense  of 
pity)  is  appropriated  almost  exclusively  to  Jehovah,  So,  too, 
in  the  New  Testament  it  is  practically  confined  to  the  Jesus. 
Its  application  to  him  by  no  means,  therefore,  can  stamp 
him  as  conceived  by  the  Evangelists  as  a  man,  but  rather 
characterises  him  as  a  God,  the  vicegerent  of  Jehovah 
himself.  On  this  point  I  have  discoursed  elsewhere  (p.  96/.) 
at  length,  and  need  not  dwell  longer  at  present. 

'  (XirXayxvf-^ofxai., 


PART  IV. 


THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND 
TACITUS 


In  the  fierce  attacks  upon  Der  vorchristltche  Jesus  pre- 
cipitated by  the  adoption,  accentuation,  and  popularisation 
of  its  theses  in  the  epoch-marking  writings  of  Professor 
Arthur  Drews,  conservative  theologians  have  very  properly 
declined  to  take  part,  thereby  combining  (as  Bacon  would 
say)  serpentine  wisdom  with  columbine  innocence.  They 
have  clearly  perceived  that  the  movement  was  not  directed 
against  their  position,  but  against  the  citadel  of  their  century- 
old  foe,  who  would  reduce  their  Divinity  to  the  ranks  of  men  ; 
and  at  least  one  of  the  very  greatest  of  them  (in  a  letter  to 
the  present  writer)  rejoiced  sincerely  at  beholding  the  sudden 
fall  of  that  adversary.  No  !  It  is  the  liberal  critic,  so  long 
enthroned  in  the  seats  of  learning,  who  has  been  amazed  to 
see  his  central  concept  of  the  purely  human  Jesus  put  on 
trial  for  its  life  and  more  than  half  convicted,  and  who, 
ingemiscens  tamquam  reiis^  has  now  for  nearly  full  two 
years  plied  an  unavailing  pen  in  passionate  protest  against 
the  audacity  of  this  "assault  upon  the  liberal  theology." 

In  the  sallies  of  the  besieged  much  weight  had  been 
laid  upon  profane  testimonies,  particularly  of  Josephus  and 
Tacitus.  It  is  Chwolson  in  St.  Petersburg  who  has  bared 
his  arm  of  might  over  the  Josephine  section  ;^  it  is  Von  Soden 
in  Berlin  who  has  stressed  so  strongly  the  Tacitean  chapter. "* 
However  much  we  may  reverence  these  scholars  in  their 
cooler  moments,  it  is  not  easy  to  take  their  impassioned 
utterances  seriously.  They  do  not,  indeed,  take  each  other 
seriously.  The  very  section  that  Chwolson  so  eagerly 
defends  Von   Soden   declares   (p.    ii)   to   be   ''undoubtedly 

*   Ueber  die  Frage  oh  Jesus  geleht  hat. 

^  Hat  Jesus  geleht '^ ^  and  m  Berliner  Religionsgesprach,  p.  39. 
229 


230        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

interpolation  "  by  Christian  hands.  Involuntarily  one  recalls 
the  famous  appeal  '*  from  Philip  drunk  to  Philip  sober,"  and 
wonders  how  the  contending  critics  will  write  to-morrow. 
To  track  down  the  endless  inaccuracies  and  fallacies  of  such 
hasty  superficialities  would  be  a  weary  and  bootless  task, 
like  chasing-  field-mice  in  autumn  :  stamp  them  out  here, 
and  lo  they  stir  the  soil  yonder !  In  this  case  to  be  just 
would  be  cruel ;  one  can  afford  to  be  generous,  and  to  pass 
over  these  Flugschriften  as  too  flighty  for  detailed  notice,  and 
as  not  representing  their  authors  properly. 

However,  the  passages  in  question  do  really  call  for  a 
calm  and  careful  and  thoroughgoing  treatment,  such  certainly 
as  they  have  not  yet  received  in  this  furious  Battle  of  the 
Booklets  ;  and  to  such  an  examination  we  now  invite  the 
patient  attention  of  the  reader. 

THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS 

When  the  liberal  critic  is  called  on  to  justify  his  dogma 
ot  the  mere  humanity  of  the  Jesus,  his  only  recourse  must 
be  to  some  form  of  historical  record.  A  merely  human  life 
is  a  matter  merely  of  human  history,  to  which  accordingly 
appeal  must  be  made.  The  history  is  either  sacred  or  profane. 
The  testimony  of  the  former  is  not  here  in  debate,  and 
besides  has  been  examined  closely  elsewhere  by  the  present 
writer.  Of  profane  history  the  witness  is  *'  brief  but 
endless,"  if,  indeed,  there  be  any  such  witness  at  all.  The 
first,  and  by  all  odds  the  most  important,  is  found  in  the 
Antiquities  of  the  Jewish  historian  Josephus — precisely  the 
work  in  which  one  would  search  for  it  with  the  liveliest 
interest  and  the  greatest  confidence.  The  attestation,  as  we 
read  it  now,  is  clear,  decisive,  and  unequivocal.  Accepted 
at  its  face  value,  it  settles  for  ever  the  question  that  now  so 
agitates  the  head  and  heart  of  Germany.  It  deserves,  then, 
the  most  conscientious  and  open-minded  scrutiny. 

Such  a  scrutiny  discloses  in  the  first  place  that  the 
chapter  in  which  the  deposition  is  found  is  concerned  exclu- 
sively with  calamities  that  overtook  the  Jews,  It  is  sand- 
wiched between  two  other  sections  that  tell  of  heavy  disasters 
that  befell   God's   people   at  Rome   and  Jerusalem.     Now, 


THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  231 

unless  this  passage  itself  tells  of  some  signal  misfortune  to 
his  countrymen — and  in  spite  of  Chwolson  it  is  hopelessly 
absurd  and  ridiculous  to  attempt  any  such  construction — it 
seems  impossible  that  Josephus  should  have  introduced  it  in 
this  connection.  We  make  this  preliminary  observation  in 
the  hope  that  the  reader  will  bear  it  constantly  in  mind  from 
the  very  start,  and  because  it  is  of  itself  absolutely  decisive 
against  the  whole  section  and  against  every  emendation 
thereof  that  apologetic  ingenuity  can  suggest.  There  is  not 
one  word  of  the  entire  passage  that  can  stand  against  this 
single  consideration — namely,  that  all  the  rest  of  the  chapter, 
both  before  and  after,  is  devoted  to  the  afflictions  that  scourged 
the  countrymen  of  the  historian. 

Here,  then,  is  this  famous  section  reproduced  in  its 
(condensed)  context:  Archeology,  Book  XVIII,  chap.  iii. 

§  I.  Pilate,  procurator  ofjudea,  removes  the  army  from 
Caesarea  to  Jerusalem  for  winter  quarters,  and,  against  all 
precedent,  brings  Caesar's  effigies  by  night  into  the  Holy 
City.  The  Jews  flock  to  Caesarea  protesting  for  five  days, 
but  in  vain  ;  the  sixth  day  Pilate  forms  a  plan  to  massacre 
them,  but,  struck  with  their  heroic  devotion  in  laying  down 
their  bared  necks,  he  relents  and  orders  back  the  images  from 
Jerusalem  to  Cassarea. 

§  2.  Pilate  undertakes  to  supply  Jerusalem  with  water, 
using  sacred  money.  The  Jews  protest  clamorously  and 
abusively.  So  he  distributes  among  the  populace  soldiers 
in  citizens'  dress  ;  at  a  signal  (when  the  Jews  refused  to 
disperse)  the  soldiers  draw  their  concealed  daggers  and 
slaughter  :  **  And  they  bore  themselves  no  way  mildly,  so 
that,  the  people  being  caught  unarmed  by  the  soldiers 
attacking  fully  prepared,  many  of  them  perished  thus  and 
some  ran  away  wounded.     And  so  the  sedition  was  stopped. 

§  3.  ''And  there  appeared  at  this  time  Jesus,  a  wise  man, 
if  man  indeed  it  be  lawful  to  call  him.  For  he  was  a  doer  of 
marvellous  works,  (a)  teacher  of  men  that  receive  the  truth 
with  pleasure.  And  many  Jews  and  many,  too,  of  the  Hellenic 
(race)  he  brought  over  to  himself.  This  was  the  Christ. 
And  when  on  the  evidence  of  the  first  men  among  us  Pilate 
had  condemned  him  to  the  cross,  they  did  not  cease  who 
had  loved  him  at  first,  for  he  appeared  to  them  on  the  third 


232        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

day  again  alive,  the  divine  prophets  having  spoken  both 
these  and  myriad  other  wondrous  things  about  him.  And 
(even)  until  now  the  tribe  of  the  Christians,  named  from  him, 
is  not  extinct." 

§  4.  "  And  about  the  same  time  another  terrible  misfortune^ 

confounded   the   Jews." Then    follows   the   story   of   the 

dishonouring  of  Paulina  in  the  temple  of  Isis  by  Mundus 
personating  Anubis,  and  of  the  punishment  of  this  sacrilege 
by  Tiberius,  who  demolished  the  temple  and  crucified  the 
offenders  all  but  the  principal,  Mundus,  himself. 

§  5.  The  misfortune  of  the  Jews  :  4,000  are  banished  from 
Rome  for  the  wickedness  of  four,  a  Rabbi  and  three 
confederates,  who  procured  gifts  from  Fulvia,  wife  of 
Saturninus,  under  false  pretences. 

We  can  hardly  covet  the  critical  insight  that  sees  in  this 
§  3  the  hand  of  Josephus.  The  chapter  deals  solely  with  the 
misfortunes  of  the  Jews  at  Ccesarea,  at  Jerusalem^  at  Rome, 
§  J  is  entirely  out  of  relation  to  its  context. 

Moreover,  that  §  4  follows  immediately  upon  §  2  is  plain 
to  see  in  the  words  ''  another  calamity  ^  The  obvious  reference 
is  to  the  preceding  massacre  in  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  possible 
reference  to  §  3. 

Furthermore,  the  style  is  not  that  of  the  historian.  It 
is  plain,  straightforward,  uninvolved,  in  contrast  with  the 
tangled  meshes  of  the  Josephine  sentence. 

Still  more,  however,  and  decisively,  the  writer  of  \  -^^is  a 
Christian.  He  declares  positively,  "This  was  the  Christ."^ 
Posing  as  Josephus,  he  says  of  Jesus,  "wise  man,"  but 
instantly  corrects  himself,  "  if  man  indeed  it  is  lawful  to  call 
him  ";  he  describes  Jesus  as  a  doer  of  prodigies,  as  a  teacher 
of  the  truth  ;  he  affirms  distinctly  the  resurrection — "  he 
appeared  the  third  day  again  alive";  he  accepts  the  whole 
body  of  ten  thousand  wonders  told  of  him  as  Messiah  and 
foretold  of  him  by  the  divine  prophets.  Such  faith  as  this, 
and  such  an  open  avowal,  might  satisfy  even  the  Holy  Office 
of  the  Inquisition. 

Once  again,  the  phraseology  smacks  strongly  of  the  New 
Testament.     Thus  yivtrai  in  the  sense  of  comes  (Mark  i,  4  ; 

^  ^rep6p  TL  8eiv6y.  "  6  XpiffTds  oCroj  ■^p. 


THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  233 

John  i,  6  ;  2  Peter  ii,  i  ;  i  John  ii,  18)  and  the  change  from 
past  to  present  tense  ;'  "  that  receive  the  truth  with  pleasure  ";^ 
compare  "  the  principal  men  "  with  ''the  head  men  "^  of  the 
Gospels,  Acts,  Epistles ;  also  "  they  that  loved  him  at  first " 
with  John  xiii,  i,  "having-  loved  his  own  which  were  in  the 
world,  he  loved  them  unto  the  end";  also  the  "myriad 
wonders "  with  John  xxi,  25,  "  The  world  itself  could  not 
contain  the  books  that  should  be  written." 

Finally,  the  phrase  "  until  now  "  recalls  the  New  Testament 
"  unto  this  day  "  (Matthew  xxviii,  15),  and  indicates  similarly 
a  late  date  for  the  paragraph,  surely  later  than  80  a.d.,  when 
Josephus  wrote  his  Archeology.  Schiirer  observes  (§  17, 
footnote  24)  that  "Josephus  has  certainly  been  interpolated 
by  a  Christian  hand";  and  in  view  of  all  the  foregoing  there 
should  be  no  hesitancy  in  bracketing  this  section,  with  the 
great  editor  Bekker,  as  spurious. 

To  this  internal  evidence  comes  the  decisive  external  fact 
that  the  section  was  unknown  to  Origen.  This  most  learned 
of  the  Fathers,  in  his  polemic  against  Celsus,  had  frequent 
and  pressing  occasion  to  use  every  scrap  of  outlying  testimony 
to  the  Christian  thesis  assailed.  As  we  shall  immediately  see, 
he  quotes  copiously  and  repeatedly  from  Josephus  witnessing 
concerning  James  the  Just ;  he  had  every  occasion  and  every 
motive  to  quote  this  incomparably  far  more  relevant  and  far 
more  important  witness  concerning  the  Christ.  That  he 
never  calls  it  in  evidence  is  morally  conclusive  proof  that 
he  did  not  know  of  its  existence,  which  can  only  mean  that 
it  was  not  in  Origen's  copy  of  Josephus.  No  attempt  yet 
made  to  evade  this  conclusion  seems  worthy  of  any  notice. 
The  fact  that  the  passage  is  not  mentioned  by  still  earlier 
writers,  as  Irenasus,  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and 
others,  affords  corroboration,  if  any  be  needed,  of  the  fact 
that  neither  this  nor  any  other  available  witness  concerning 
Jesus  was  to  be  found  in  the  copies  of  Josephus  in  the  hands 
of  the  Christian  Fathers. 

It   seems,    then,   that   the   non-Josephine   origin   of  this 

''  So  also  irapabd^wv ,  as  in  Luke  v,  26,etda/xev  irapdSo^a  a-qixepov. 

'  Cf.  Luke  viii,  13,  "receive  the  word  with  joy";  Acts  xvii,  11,  "received 
the  word  with  all  zeal";  James  i,  21,  "receive  with  meekness  the  engrafted 
word." 

3    &PX0VT€S. 


234        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

section  is  indicated  unambiguously  by  almost  every  kind  of 
evidence  that  can  be  demanded  in  such  matters.  Its  testimony 
would  appear  to  be  not  for,  but  distinctly  against,  the  position 
it  was  invented  to  support ;  for  men  do  not  fabricate  docu- 
ments to  corroborate  the  true,  but  to  recommend  the  false. 
Let  us  not  insist  on  this,  however,  but  remain  content  with 
the  obvious  fact  that,  on  the  most  favourable  reckoning 
possible,  the  section  labours  under  the  gravest  suspicion,  and 
can  attest  nothing  save  that  itself  is  in  the  direst  need  of 
attestation. 

Here  at  the  outset  it  may  be  well  to  observe  that  the 
general  hypothesis  of  Christian  interpolation  needs  no  vindi- 
cation and  involves  no  improbability.  For  that  it  is  a  fact  in 
countless  cases  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  Leaving  aside  the 
New  Testament  for  the  present,  the  list  of  outright  pseudony- 
mous Christian  compositions,  universally  so  recognised,  is 
long  and  formidable.  It  is  not  necessary  to  burden  these 
pages  with  any  such  list,  since  such  lists  are  easily  accessible 
and  the  general  fact  is  nowhere  in  dispute.  Moreover,  of 
works  probably  genuine,  it  is  the  rare  exception  that  has 
escaped  interpolation.  Jewish  works  were  regularly  adapted 
to  Christian  use  by  this  approved  process  of  intercalating 
Christian  sentiments,  dogmas,  or  allusions.  Witness  the 
Sibylline  Oracles,  the  Testaments  of  the  Patriarchs,  and  the 
Jewish  Apocrypha  in  general.  So  far,  then,  from  being 
antecedently  improbable,  such  interpolation  is  very  probable 
antecedently  ;  it  is  more  likely  than  not.  Nevertheless,  to 
leave  a  wider  margin  of  safety,  we  shall  employ  this  form 
of  argument  sparingly,  not  wherever  its  use  is  possible,  but 
only  where  it  is  recommended  by  independent  considerations. 

A  second  reference  of  Josephus  to  Jesus  might  be 
imagined  in  the  following  paragraph  {Arc/i,,  XX,  ix,  i) 
treating  of  the  death  of  James,  *'the  brother  of  the  Lord":  — 

"  Ananus,  then,  being  such  (as  I  have  said),  fancying  he 
had  now  a  fitting  opportunity,  since  Festus  was  dead  and 
Albinus  was  still  on  the  road,  assembles  a  Sanhedrin  of 
judges,  and  having  brought  thither  the  brother  of  Jesus ^  him 
called  Christ  (James  was  his  namejy  and  some  certain  others^ 
and  having  made  accusations  (against  them  as)  lawbreakers, 
he  delivered  them  to  be  stoned." 


THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  235 

The  words  in  italics^  have  been  regarded  as  spurious— we 
think,  correctly.  Neander  and  others  defend  them,  and 
McGiffert  says  {The  Church  History  of  Eus,^  p.  127, 
n.  39) :  "  It  is  very  difficult  to  suppose  that  a  Christian, 
in  interpolating  the  passage,  would  have  referred  to  James 
as  the  brother  of  the  '  so-called  Christ.'  "^  Indeed  !  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  just  because  this  phrase  is  the  most  approved 
Christian,  evangelic,  and  canonic  that  we  suspect  it  in 
Josephus.  It  meets  us  in  Matthew  i,  16;  xxvii,  17,  22; 
John  iv,  25.  The  depreciatory  ''so"  is  not  in  the  Greek. 
Thus  we  read  of  "  Simon  the  so-called  Peter "  (Matthew 
iv,  18;  X,  2),  "the  high-priest  the  so-called  Caiaphas " 
(Matthew  xxvi,  3),  "the  feast  the  so-called  Passover" 
(Luke  xxii,  i),  "the  man  the  so-called  Jesus"  (John  ix,  11), 
"  Thomas  the  so-called  Didymus  "  (John  xi,  16  ;  xx,  24  ; 
xxi,  2),  "gate  the  so-called  Beautiful"  (Acts  iii,  2),  "tent  the 
so-called  Holy  of  Holies  "  (Heb.  ix,  3),  where  depreciation  is 
out  of  the  question.  The  indication  is  merely  that  of  a 
surname  or  nickname,  or  name  in  some  way  peculiar  or 
extraordinary. 

It  seems  incredible  that  Josephus  should  throw  in  such  an 
observation  at  this  stage  without  any  preparation  or  explana- 
tion or  occasion.  Moreover,  it  is  certain  that  Josephus  has 
been  interpolated  elsewhere  by  Christian  hands,  and  with 
precisely  this  same  phrase  ;  for  Origen  thrice  quotes  as  from 
Josephus  the  statement  that  the  Jewish  sufferings  at  the  hands 
of  Titus  were  a  divine  retribution  for  the  slaying  of  James  : 
"Josephus  says  in  his  Archeology:  'According  to  wrath  of 
God  these  things  came  upon  them,  for  the  things  dared  by 
them  against  James,  the  brother  of  Jesus  the  so-called  Christ.' 

And  he  says  that  'the  people,  too,  thought  they  suffered 

these  things  on  account  of  James ' "  (463)  in  Matt,  xiii,  55. 
"  The  same  [Josephus]  seeking  the  cause  of  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem and  of  the  demolition  of  the  Temple says  :  '  These 

[calamities]  befell  the  Jews  in  vengeance  for  James  the  Just, 
who  was  brother  of  Jesus,  the  so-called  Christ,  since,  indeed, 
they  slew  him,  though  being  most  just.'  " — Contra  C,  I,  47. 


Tbv  &5€\(f>bv  'Irja-oO  tov  Xeyo/xhov  Xpi,<rTou  ('Ia/cw/3os  6vo/ia  avTcp)  and  Kal  eripovs. 
TOO  Xeyofievov  Xpiarov. 


236        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

"Titus  demolished  Jerusalem,  as  Josephus  writes,  on  account 
of  James  the  Just,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  the  so-called  Christ." 
— Contra  C,  II,  i^  fin.  The  passage  is  still  found  in  some 
Josephus  manuscripts  ;  but  as  it  is  wanting  in  others  it  is, 
and  must  be,  regarded  as  a  Christian  interpolation  older  than 
Origen  (against  Hilgenfeld,  Einleitung^  p.  526,  who  thinks 
the  passage  has  been  expunged  from  Christian  manuscripts 
of  Josephus !).  Now,  since  this  phrase  is  certainly  inter- 
polated in  the  one  place,  the  only  reasonable  conclusion  is 
that  it  is  interpolated  in  the  other.  This  notion  that  the 
death  of  James  was  avenged  in  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  is 
found  in  the  bud  in  Hegesippus,  who  says  :  "  And  so  he 
suffered  martyrdom.     And  they  buried  him  on  the  spot  beside 

the  temple This  man  became  a  true  witness  both  to  Jews 

and  to  Greeks  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  And  straightway 
Vespasian  besieges  them  "  (Eus.,  H,  E.,  II,  23,  18). 

But  does  not  the  phrase  itself  attest  the  mere  humanity 
of  the  Jesus?  Now,  it  is  plain  that  if  James  or  any  one  else 
was  really  the  flesh-and-blood  brother  of  the  Lord  or  of  Jesus, 
then  this  latter  was  assuredly  not  purely  human.  But  is 
flesh-and-blood  kinship  meant  by  the  term  "  brother  "?  It  is 
not  certain  ;  it  is  not  even  probable.  Winckler  (in  Arabtsch- 
Semitisch-Orientaliscli)  and  others  have  shown  us  how  broad 
is  the  notion  of  brother  in  the  East.  In  the  New  Testament 
itself  the  term  is  used  continually,  regularly,  to  denote 
religious  relation,  without  the  remotest  hint  of  blood  kinship. 
In  the  West  and  to-day  it  is  similarly  used  of  all  members 
of  an  organisation,  secular  as  well  as  religious.  In  the 
Gospels^  Jesus  himself  is  made  to  ask:  "Who  are  my 
brothers?"  And  he  answers  :  "  They  that  do  the  will  of  my 
Father  in  heaven."  Here,  then,  in  the  most  ancient  Church, 
we  find  distinct  declaration  that  to  be  "brother  of  Jesus  "  was 
to  keep  the  law,  to  do  the  will  of  the  Father  in  heaven.  Now, 
it  was  precisely  this  punctilious  fulfilment  of  the  law  for 
which  this  James  the  Just  was  famous.  This  fact  is  well 
known  and  universally  admitted,  so  that  it  stands  in  no  need 
of  formal  proof. 


*  Matt,  xii,  46-50;  Mark  iii,  31-35;  Luke  viii,  21.     See  also  Matt,  xxv,  40, 
xxviii,  10  ;  i  Cor.  ix,  5  ;  Gal.  i,  19. 


THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  237 

In  Acts  we  hear  a  good  deal  of  this  James,  but  only  in 
this  character  as  the  leader  of  the  law-abiding  disciples.  No 
less  an  authority  than  Jerome  (a.d.  387)  has  expressed  the 
correct  idea  on  this  point.  In  commenting  on  Gal.  i,  19,  he 
says  (in  sum):  ''James  was  called  the  Lord's  brother  on 
account  of  his  high  character,  his  incomparable  faith,  and 
his  extraordinary  wisdom  ;  the  other  Apostles  are  also  called 
brothers  (John  xx,  17),  but  he  pre-eminently  so  to  whom  the 
Lord  at  his  departure  had  committed  the  sons  of  his  mother" 
{t.e.^  the  members  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem).  Similarly 
Origen,  in  immediate  continuation  ofthe  passagecited(C  Cels.^ 
i,  47).  From  i  Cor.  ix,  5,  we  see  with  distinctness  that  there 
was  a  class  of  Messianists,  nearly  co-ordinate  with  the 
Apostles,  bearing  the  honoured  name  of  "brothers  of  the 
Jesus,"  or  "of  the  Lord";  also  a  class  called  "Those  of 
Kephas."  Hence  in  Corinth  some  said,  "  I  am  of  Kephas"; 
others,  "  I  am  of  Christ." 

Indeed,  it  is  never  hinted  that  James  was  really  con- 
sanguineous with  Jesus.  We  hold,  then,  that  this  term 
"brother  of  the  Lord,"  does  by  no  means  imply  any  family 
kinship — that  it  most  probably  designates  a  class  of  earnest 
Messianists,  zealots  of  obedience  ;  and  we  venture  to  set 
them  in  close  relation  with  the  Corinthian  "  Those  of  the 
Christ."'  Surely,  if  a  sect  of  early  Messianists  were  known 
as  particularly  "They  of  the  Christ,"  it  is  highly  likely  that 
they  or  some  similar  group  should  be  known  as  "  brothers 
of  the  Lord"  or  of  "Jesus."  Especially  does  this  seem 
intrinsically  probable  when  we  remember  that  there  is  no 
evidence  that  this  name  was  employed  before  the  notion  of 
the  earthly  human  life  of  Jesus  was  already  established,  or 
at  least  establishing  itself.  That  zealots  should  then  call 
themselves  and  their  earlier  leader  "  brothers  of  Jesus  "  is 
no  stranger  than  that  Loyola  should  found  the  "  Society  of 
Jesus."  Besides,  we  must  never  forget  that  names  of  the 
Christians  did  greatly  abound,  such  as  Saints,  Disciples, 
Called,  Elect,  "of  Paul,"  "of  Peter,"  "of  Christ,"  Nazorees, 
Gnostics,  the  Perfect,  Pneumatics,  and  others.  From  all  of 
which  we  conclude  that  the  phrase  in  question,  no  matter 

^    Ol  TOV  XpiffTOV. 


238        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

when  first  used,  nor  by  whom,  nor  of  whom,  by  no  means 
implies  any  kinship,  or  furnishes  any  proof  of  the  purely 
human  character  of  Jesus. 

THE  SILENCE  OF  TACITUS 

The  next  reference  to  Christ  by  a  profane  writer  is  found 
in  Tacitus' : — 

Sed  non  ope  humana,  non  largitionibus  principis  aut  deum  placa- 
mentis  decedebat  infamla,  quin  iussum  incendium  crederetur.  Ergo 
abolendo  rumori  Nero  subdidit  reos  et  quaesitisslmis  poenis  adfecit, 
quos  per  flagitia  invlsos  vulgus  Christianos  appellabat.  Auctor 
nominis  elus  Chrlstus  Tiberio  imperitante  per  procuratorem  Pontium 
Pilatum  supplicio  adfectus  erat ;  repressaque  in  praesens  exitiabilis 
superstitio  rursus  erumpebat,  non  modo  per  ludaeam,  originem  eius 
mail,  sed  per  urbem  etiam,  quo  cuncta  undique  atrocia  aut  pudenda 
confluunt  celebranturque.  Igltur  primum  correpti  qui  fatebantur, 
deinde  indicio  eorum  multitudo  ingens  baud  proinde  in  crimine 
incendii  quam  odio  humani  generis  convicti  sunt.  Et  pereuntibus 
addita  ludibria,  ut  ferarum  tergis  contecti  laniatu  canum  interirent, 
aut  crucibus  adfixi  aut  flammandi,  atque,  ubi  defecisset  dies,  in 
usum  nocturni  luminis  urerentur.  Hortos  suos  ei  spectaculo  Nero 
obtulerat  et  circense  ludicrum  edebat,  habitu  aurigae  permixtus  plebi 
vel  curriculo  insistens.  Unde  quamquam  adversus  sontes  et  novis- 
sima  exempla  meritos  miseratio  oriebatur,  tamquam  non  utilitate 
publica  sed  in  saevitiam  unius  absumerentur  {Annals,  xv,  44). 

With  respect  to  this  famous  passage  we  must  observe 
first  that,  tf  it  he  genuine^  it  was  written  in  the  first  quarter 
of  the  second  century,  near  the  close  of  the  last  work  of  the 
great  historian,  most  probably  after  the  death  of  Trajan 
(a.d.  117).  At  the  most,  then,  it  records  only  a  report 
accepted  at  that  time  among  Christians.  Now  it  is  not  at 
all  strange  that  the  fiction  (if  it  be  a  fiction)  of  the  death 
under  Pilate  should  be  current  at  that  date,  nearly  three 
generations  after  the  feigned  event.  If  such  a  report 
originated  at  all,  it  originated  (gradually  to  be  sure)  at  some 
time  most  probably  in  the  first  century  ;  it  may  easily  then 
have  obtained  currency  and  reached  the  ears  of  Tacitus 
before  a.d.  iio.  Its  reproduction  at  his  hands,  then, 
merely  attests  its  existence  at  that  date,  but  in  no  degree 
attests  its  correctness. 

^  For  the  translation  and  the  context  see  infra^  p.  246. 


THE  SILENCE  OF  TACITUS  239 

Thus  far  on  the  supposition  that  the  passage  proceeds 
from  Tacitus  ;  we  need  make  no  other  supposition  for  the 
purposes  of  our  argument.  Let  it  be  genuine,  if  you  will ; 
it  proves  nothing  that  is  worth  debate.  Since  he  has  never 
attached  any  argumentative  importance  to  the  passage,  the 
mind  of  the  writer  may  be  fairly  supposed  to  be  in  a  measure 
unprejudiced,  and  as  a  mere  matter  of  critical  candour  he 
must  not  disguise  from  the  reader  that  he  most  gravely 
doubts  its  genuineness.  It  has  indeed  been  speciously 
contended  of  late  that  Poggio  Bracciolini  was  the  author  of 
the  Annals,^  but  there  are  very  cogent  reasons  against  this 
contention.  This  whole  section,  however,  reads  very  much 
like  fabrication,  or  at  least  emendation,  of  a  Christian  hand. 
Among  other  suspicious  circumstances  may  be  noted  the 
following  : — 

{a)  Such  a  remarkable  persecution  as  here  described,  and 
such  a  passage  from  such  an  author,  would  have  deeply 
impressed  the  early  Christian  mind.  There  is  nothing  else 
nearly  equal  to  either  in  pagan  history  and  literature  of  that 
century.  We  should  expect  them  to  stand  out  conspicuous 
in  the  memories  and  memorials  of  the  following  generations. 
We  know  how  zealously  the  data  of  martyrdom  were  cherished 
and  even  invented  at  an  early  period.  It  is  inconceivable, 
then,  that  an  event  so  supremely  memorable  should  have 
escaped  all  record  and  all  reference.  Yet  what  is  the  state 
of  the  case  ?  Early  tradition  is  absolutely  silent  about  both 
the  Neronian  persecution  and  the  Tacitean  testimony.  Paul 
would  seem  to  have  been  in  Rome  about  that  time  (a.d.  64). 
Surely  he  would  have  been  involved  someway  in  the  pro- 
ceedings. Yet  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  part  he  played  in 
the  tragedy.  True,  in  2  Tim.  iv,  6-8,  we  read  :  '*  For  already 
I  pour  myself  out  as  offering,  and  the  time  of  my  dissolution 
is  come  ;  I  have  fought  the  good  fight,  have  finished  the 
course,  have  kept  the  faith  ;  henceforth  is  laid  up  for  me  the 
crown  of  righteousness  which  the  Lord  shall  give  me  in  that 
day,  the  Just  Judge,  and  not  only  to  me  but  to  all  who  have 
loved  his  appearing."     But  in  verses   16  and   17  the  scene 


^  Tacitus  and  Bracciolini.     The  Annals  Forged  in  the  Fifteenth   Century. 
London,  1878. 


240        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

shifts  suddenly  :  "  At  my  first  defence  none  was  for  me,  but 
all  forsook  me — let  it  not  be  reckoned  against  them — but  the 
Lord  stood  by  me  and  strengthened  me,  that  through  me  the 
preaching  might  be  fulfilled  and  all  the  nations  hear :  and  I 
was  delivered  from  (the)  lion's  mouth.  The  Lord  will  deliver 
me  from  every  evil  work,  and  will  save  me  unto  his  kingdom 
the  heavenly." 

Again,  in  verse  ii  all  have  deserted  him  but  one  :  "Only 
Luke  is  with  me."  But  in  verses  19-21  he  is  surrounded  by  a 
numerous  company — ''Eubulusand  Pudens,  and  Linus  and 
Claudia,  and  all  the  brethren."  Out  of  such  contradictions 
nothing  can  be  made,  save  only  that  there  is  no  hint  at 
anything  like  the  Neronian  persecution.  The  writer  or 
writers  seem  not  to  have  known  any  tradition  concerning  it 
which  they  could  work  into  these  pastorals. 

The  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  addressed  to  the  elect  of  the 
dispersion  in  Northern  Asia  Minor,  is  much  concerned  with 
the  persecution  and  "  fiery  trial  "  that  has  overtaken  them  ; 
but,  though  apparently  written  from  Rome  ("  Babylon,"  v,  13), 
it  contains  not  the  remotest  reference  to  the  "  fiery  trial " 
through  which  it  is  supposed  the  church  there  had  passed. 
Some  reference,  however,  under  such  circumstances,  would 
seem  to  be  so  natural  as  to  be  almost  inevitable. 

Not  even  in  the  Apocalypse  do  we  find  any  clear  or  even 
probable  allusion  to  an  event  that  would  have  bulked  so 
hugely  in  the  early  Christian  consciousness.  On  this  point 
we  need  not  enlarge ;  enough  to  refer  to  the  works  of 
Mommsen  and  Neumann  ;  even  Furneaux  admits  that  "the 
supposed  references are  certainly  in  great  part  to  be  other- 
wise explained,"  though  he  still  thinks  there  "are  points  in 
which  such  allusions  can  hardly  be  excluded  " — an  opinion 
that  seems  to  be  the  last  remnant  of  departing  prejudice. 
Why,  then,  did  the  Apocalyptist  not  refer  to  this  tremendous 
persecution  distinctly,  or  at  least  unequivocally,  if  he  had  ever 
heard  thereof? 

Turning  now  to  Clement  of  Rome,  we  find  him  (chap,  v) 
very  naturally  setting  before  the  eyes  of  his  correspondents 
"the  noble  examples  that  belong  to  our  generation."  The 
fierce  persecution  detailed  by  Tacitus  would  have  been 
perfectly  known  to  him,  yet  he  seems  never  to  have  heard 


THE  SILENCE  OF  TACITUS  241 

of  it.  The  sufferings  of  Peter  he  attributes  to  ''  unrighteous 
jealousy."  *'  Not  one,  nor  two,  but  more  trials  he  underwent, 
and  so,  having  borne  witness,  he  fared  to  the  appointed  place 
of  glory.  By  reason  of  jealousy  and  strife  Paul  exemplified 
the  prize  of  patience.  Seven  times  cast  into  bonds,  exiled, 
stoned,  made  preacher  both  in  east  and  west,  he  received  the 
noble  renown  of  his  faith,  having  taught  the  whole  world 
righteousness  and  come  to  the  bounds  of  the  west,  and  having 
borne  witness  before  the  rulers,  so  he  departed  from  the  world 
and  fared  unto  the  holy  place,  having  become  a  chiefest 
pattern  of  patience."  We  do  not  pretend  to  know  the  exact 
meaning  of  such  words  ;  it  seems  doubtful  whether  Clement 
himself  knew.  But  it  seems  certain  that  they  convey  no  hint 
of  the  Neronic  persecution  as  described  in  the  Annals  ;  nay, 
more,  they  seem  to  imply  unmistakably  that  their  author  had 
never  heard  of  any  such  ''fiery  trial." 

Passing  to  the  *' Ignatians,"  we  find  the  letter  to  the 
Romans  written  in  a  style  and  mood  of  extreme  exaltation. 
"  Ignatius  "  yearns  passionately  for  the  arena  ;  he  longs  to  be 
ground  as  wheat  by  the  teeth  of  wild  beasts.  Surely,  if  he 
had  ever  heard  of  the  terrible  experience  of  the  Romans 
themselves,  such  a  rhetorician  would  have  let  some  hint 
escape  him.  But  he  does  not,  and  his  silence  appears  to 
admit  of  but  the  one  and  the  same  explanation. 

It  is  superfluous  to  pass  in  review  the  other  Christian 
writers  of  this  era.  They  are  consistently  dumb  on  the 
subject  under  discussion,  and  their  collective  stillness  makes 
the  argument  from  silence  as  convincing  as  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  it  ever  can  be. 

Far  down  the  stream  of  history,  over  one  hundred  years 
from  the  date  of  the  conflagration,  we  find  at  last,  in  a 
fragment  quoted  by  Eusebius  {H.  E.^  iv,  26)  from  a  Libellus 
addressed  to  Antoninus  (Aurelius)  by  Melito,  Bishop  of 
Sardis  (near  170  a.d.),  the  first  Christian  allusion  to  Nero  as 
an  enemy  of  Christians.  It  declares  :  "  For  what  has  never 
before  happened^    the   race   of    the   pious   is   now   suffering 

persecution,  being  driven  about  in  Asia  by  new  decrees 

for  our  philosophy  formerly  flourished  among  the  barbarians, 
but,  having  sprung  up  among  the  nations  under  thy  rule 
during  the  great  reign  of  thy  ancestor  Augustus,  it  became  to 

R 


242        THE  SILENCE  OP  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

thy  empire  especially  a  blessing  of  auspicious  omen.  And 
a  most  convincing  proof  that  our  doctrine  flourished  for  the 
good  of  an  empire  happily  begun  is  this  :  that  there  has  no 

evil    happened    since   Augustus'    reign only    Nero    and 

Domitian,  persuaded  by  certain  calumnious  men,  wished  to 
slander  our  doctrine,  from  whom  also  it  has  come  to  pass  that 
the  falsehood  has  been  handed  down  by  unreasonable  custom 
of  information  ('sycophancy')  against  such  (Christians)." 
One  moment  we  may  pause  to  note  that  the  good  bishop 
goes  back  to  the  reign  of  Augustus  for  the  origin  of  "our 
philosophy,"  which  had  already  existed  among  the  "  bar- 
barians"  (z.^.,  the  Jews — Tatian  calls  the  Jewish  Scriptures 
**  barbaric"),'  and  which  must  then  have  been  essentially 
monotheism — and  then  we  observe  that  he  has  apparently  no 
knowledge  and  no  idea  of  the  Neronian  persecution  as  now  set 
forth  in  Tacitus,  and  that  he  is  arguing  that  good  emperors 
have  tolerated,  while  only  the  wicked  have  discountenanced 
Christianity.  Here  he  adds  :  "  But  thy  pious  fathers  corrected 
their  ignorance,  having  frequently  rebuked  in  writing  many 
who  dared  to  attempt  new  measures  against  them " — in 
evidence  whereof  he  refers  to  Adrian's  Epistle  to  Fundanus 
and  to  many  others. 

No  new  furrow  need  be  driven  through  the  field  so  well 
ploughed  by  Keim,  Overbeck,  Mommsen,  Schiller,  Lightfoot, 
Ramsay,  and  others.  It  is  enough  that  Melito,  who  seems  ot 
have  been  so  exceedingly  well  versed  in  the  relation  of  Chris- 
tianity to  the  State,  still  gives  no  hint  of  anything  resembling 
the  Tacitean  persecution.  And  yet  to  do  so  would  have  suited 
the  purposes  of  his  argument  admirably.  With  great  force 
he  could  have  said  :  "  Nero  the  matricide,  the  worst  of  men, 
Nero  did  indeed  persecute  us  atrociously,  to  hide  his  own 
iniquity,  as  your  own  historian  Tacitus  bears  witness  ;  and 
behold  what  swift  and  just  and  terrible  vengeance  overtook 
him  !  "  How  could  Melito  have  failed  to  make  such  a  telling 
and  obvious  point? 

Another  descent  brings  us  to  Tertullian,  who  admittedly 
knew  and  made  use  of  Melito's  booklet  in  his  own  Apolo- 
geticum.     His  argument  is  the  same,  that  good  government 

*  In  describing  his  own  conversion  {Address  to  the  Greeks,  chap.  xxix). 


THE  SILENCE  OF  TACITUS  243 

favoured  and  bad  gfovernment  disfavoured  the  Christians,  ^~-— ^ 
but  he  is  far  more  reckless  in  assertion.  He  declares  (c.  5) 
that  "  Tiberius,  when  intelligence  reached  him  from  Syria 
Palestine  of  what  had  there  revealed  truth  of  Divinity  itself, 
reported  to  the  Senate  with  the  weight  [prcerogativa)  of  his 
own  vote.  The  Senate,  because  it  had  not  itself  tested, 
rejected  (his  proposal) ;  Csesar  maintained  his  judgment, 
threatening  peril  to  accusers  of  Christians."  Let  the  reader 
not  be  surprised  at  such  history  made  to  order.  "  Consult 
your  records  (commentarios)  ;  there  you  will  find  Nero  the 
first  that  raged  with  Caesarean  sword  against  this  sect  when 
rising  most  at  Rome.  But  in  such  a  founder  of  our  con- 
demnation we  glory  even,  for  whoso  knows  him  can  under- 
stand that  only  something  signally  good  was  condemned  by 
Nero.  Domitian,  too,  made  trial,  a  portion  of  Nero  in 
cruelty  ;  but,  being  also  man,  readily  he  checked  his  own 
beginning,  restoring  even  whom  he  had  banished.  Such 
always  our  persecutors,  unjust,  impious,  base,  whom  you 
yourselves  are  wont  to  condemn,  those  condemned  by  whom 
you  are  wont  to  restore." 

Here  one  begins  to  suspect  that  Nero  is  made  to  play  the 
role  of  persecutor  only  because  he  was  so  perfectly  suited  to 
the  part.  But  even  Tertullian  reveals  no  notion  of  such  a 
Neronian  persecution  as  we  read  of  in  Tacitus.  Yet  he  was 
acquainted  with  this  historian,  whose  Historice  he  cites  at  / 
length  (c.  16),  on  whose  name  he  puns,  whom  he  cordially 
hates  for  defaming  the  Jews.  Had  he  read  of  Nero's  burning 
the  Christians  alive,  would  he  have  used  such  vague  and 
commonplace  imagery  as  ** raged  with  Caesarean  sword" 
and  "through  Nero's  cruelty  they  sowed  Christian  blood"? 
Remember  that  Tertullian  was  a  rhetorician  to  his  finger- 
tips. Would  he  have  neglected  such  an  exceptional  oppor- 
tunity for  the  display  of  his  thrice-favourite  art? 

It  seems  needless  to  discuss  still  later  testimony,  as 
that  of  Lactantius  (De  mort,  persec,  2),  of  Origen  (Eus., 
H.  E,,  ni,  i),  of  Eusebius  {H.  E.,  H,  25),  and  of  Jerome. 
These  late  writers  have  at  last  learned,  after  two  centuries 
or  more  of  ignorance,  that  Peter  and  Paul  fell  victims  to 
Neronian  fury  ;  but  they  still  have  no  idea  that  Nero  falsely 
accused  the  Christians  of  setting  the  city  on  fire,  nor  do  they 


244        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

hint  that  a  **  vast  multitude  "  lit  up  the  Roman  night  with 
the  flames  of  their  burning  bodies.  Not  until  the  fourth 
century,  in  Ep.  12  of  the  forged  correspondence  of  Paul  and 
Seneca,  do  we  read  that "  Christians  and  Jews,  as  if  contrivers 
of  (a)  conflagration,  when  put  to  death  are  wont  to  be  burned." 
But  even  here  the  allusion,  if  there  be  any,  to  the  Neronian 
persecution  is  extremely  vague. 

It  must  be  added  that  the  Jews  are  here  associated  with 
the  Christians;  that  they  could  hardly  have  been  sharply 
separated  in  Rome  a.d.  64;  that  they,  far  more  than  Chris- 
tians, were  open  to  the  charge  of  hatred  of  the  human  race 
("  Against  all  others,  hostile  hate  ") — Tacitus,  ^.5,  2  ;  that 
they  had  already  felt  twice  in  Rome  (under  Tiberius  and 
under  Claudius)  the  weight  of  the  imperial  hand  ;  that 
Lucan,  Pliny,  Persius,  Seneca — all  writers  of  that  era — speak 
of  the  Jews  with  sharpness,  never  of  the  Christians — and  it 
will  appear  practically  impossible  that  they  could  have 
escaped  in  any  such  persecution  as  the  Tacitean.  But  if 
they  did  not  escape,  if  they  suffered,  this  must  have  been 
known  to  their  great  historian  and  champion,  Josej)hus,  who 
was  a  young  man  at  the  time. 

Now,  this  writer,  in  his  Archeology  (XX,  8,  3),  protests 
against  the  gross  inaccuracies  and  falsehoods  of  the 
biographers  of  Nero,  both  favourable  and  unfavourable, 
while  disclaiming  any  intention  to  correct  or  supplement 
them  in  general.  "  But  what  things  befell  us  Jews  we  shall 
exhibit  with  great  accuracy,^  shrinking  to  show  plainly 
neither  our  calamities  nor  our  sins."  If,  then,  even  a  few 
Jews  had  fallen  victims  in  the  capital  to  Neronian  calumny 
and  savagery,  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  Josephus 
would  have  known  and  noted  it.  Yet  he  gives  not  the 
slightest  hint  that  any  such  rumour  had  ever  reached  his 
ears. 

Here,  then,  we  stand  in   presence  of  the  unbroken  and 

\  universal  silence  of  over  two  hundred  years  concerning  an 

alleged  event  of  capital   importance,  transacted  in  the  very 

centre  of  knowledge  and  information  and  rumour,  yet  never 

once   mentioned  by  any  one   among   many  whose   especial 

*  ov  rrap^pyus. 


THE  SILENCE  OF  TACITUS  245 

interest  it  was  to  tell  of  it  often  and  to  dwell  on  it  at  length. 
Nor  can  any  one  suggest  the  slightest  reason  for  this  silence, 
for  this  studied  suppression  of  a  highly  momentous  and 
dramatic  incident  in  a  reign  that  was  a  favourite  subject  of 
historic  delineation,  and  that  lent  itself  especially  to  high 
colouring  and  picturesque  exaggeration.  Such  considera- 
tions seem  ample  to  weight  the  scale  heavily  against  the 
genuineness  of  the  passage  in  question. 

{b)  On  looking  more  narrowly  at  the  whole  Tacitean 
context,  we  find  that  it  suggests  quite  independently  many 
doubts  kindred  and  hardly  less  grave.  The  account  of  the 
great  fire  extends  through  six  chapters,  beginning  with  the 
thirty-eighth  :  "  Follows  a  disaster  ;  whether  by  chance  or  by 
guile  of  the  prince  is  uncertain."  A  vivid  description  is 
given.  Chap,  xxxix  tells  how  Nero  did  not  return  from 
Antium  till  the  flames  approached  (as  they  ultimately 
devoured)  his  house.  He  took  instant  and  popular  measures 
to  relieve  the  homeless  and  destitute,  but  "  without  avail, 
since  rumour  had  gone  abroad  that  at  the  very  moment  of 
the  city  in  flames  he  had  gone  upon  a  private  stage  and  sung 
the  Fall  of  Troy,  likening  present  ills  to  ancient  calamities." 
Chap,  xl  tells  of  the  end  put  to  the  conflagration  at  the 
foot  of  the  Esquiline,  and  of  its  second  outburst,  involving 
fewer  deaths  but  more  widespread  destruction.  Chap,  xli 
enumerates  some  of  the  elements  of  the  fearful  loss.  Chap,  xlii 
tells  how  *'  Nero  made  use  of  his  country's  ruins,  and  erected 
a  house  "  in  which  the  genius  and  audacity  of  Severus  and 
Celer  would  defiantly  outvie  the  prodigality  of  Nature  herself. 
It  seems  plain  that  the  immense  achievements  and  immenser 
conceptions  of  these  architects  and  landscape  gardeners  must 
have  required  years  for  their  elaboration  and  even  partial 
execution.  Chap,  xliii  tells  of  the  rebuilding  of  Rome  itself, 
not  in  the  old  irregular  fashion,  but  "with  rows  of  streets 
measured  out,  with  wide-wayed  spaces,  with  limited  height 
of  buildings,  and  areas  laid  open  and  colonnades  added  to 
protect  the  frontage  of  the  tenements  (insularurri)^  This 
description  is  elaborated,  and  what  part  Nero  took  in  the 
rebuilding  is  emphasised.  These  changes  pleased  in  general 
both  by  their  utility  and  by  their  beauty,  though  some  there 
were  that  said  the  old  was  better. 


246        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

A  city  cannot  be  rebuilt  in  such  substantial  fashion  ("  with 
stone  from  Gabii  or  Alba,  impervious  to  fire  ")  in  a  day  or 
month  or  year,  nor  without  enormous  outlay  of  money  ;  and 
the  imperial  treasury  seems  to  have  borne  the  weight  of  the 
expense.  It  is  not  strange,  then,  but  nearly  inevitable,  that 
the  next  chapter  should  continue  thus  :  **  Meanwhile,  by  con- 
tributing funds,  Italy  was  laid  waste  throughout,  provinces 
subverted,  and  allied  peoples  and  whatever  States  are  called 
free.  Even  the  gods  fell  a  prey  to  this  plunder,"  their 
temples  being  robbed  of  gold  and  votive  offerings,  and  even 
the  images  of  the  gods  themselves. 

And  so  precisely  does  chap,  xlv  open,  as  the  natural  and 
almost  inevitable  continuation  of  chap,  xliii,  stating  the 
necessary  consequences  of  the  methods  and  aims  of  Nero  as 
therein  set  forth.  Between  these  two  chapters,  thus  so  closely 
united  in  thought,  we  now  read  chap,  xliv,  which  has  no 
intimate  connection  with  either. 

"  And  these  things  (the  gradual  Neronian  rebuilding)  were 
provided  by  human  counsels.  Next  (mox)  were  sought  pro- 
pitiations to  the  gods,  and  recourse  was  had  to  the  Sibyl's 
books,  whence  followed  supplication  to  Volcan  and  Ceres  and 
Proserpine  ;  and  Juno  was  propitiated  by  matrons,  first  in  the 
Capitol,  then  at  the  nearest  point  of  the  sea,  with  water  drawn 
whence  the  temple  and  image  of  the  goddess  were  sprinkled  ; 
and  sacred  banquets  and  night-long  vigils  did  the  women 
celebrate  who  had  husbands.  But  not  through  human  effort, 
not  through  largesses  of  the  prince  nor  appeasements  of  the 
gods,  did  the  ill  report  subside  ;  but  still  the  fire  was  believed 
(to  have  been)  ordered.  Therefore,  to  get  rid  of  the  rumour, 
Nero  substituted  as  guilty  and  subjected  to  most  exquisite 
tortures  (those)  whom,  hated  for  their  abominations,  the 
populace  used  to  call  Christians.  The  author  of  this  name, 
Christus,  had  been  executed  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  by 
procurator  Pontius  Pilate ;  and  though  repressed  for  the 
moment  (this)  pernicious  superstition  was  breaking  forth 
again,  not  only  through  Judsea,  source  of  this  evil,  but  even 
through  the  capital  where  all  things  hideous  or  shameful  pour 
together  from  everywhere  and  catch  the  crowd.  Accordingly, 
first  were  hurried  away  (to  trial  those)  who  confessed  (the 
charge) ;  then  by  information  of  these  an  immense  multitude, 


THE  SILENCE  OF  TACITUS  247 

not  so  much  for  the  crime  of  incendiarism  as  hatred  of  the 
human  race,  were  convicted  (or  conjoined,  convicH  or  con- 
juncti).  And  to  them  perishing  were  added  mockeries,  (as) 
that  clothed  with  hides  of  wild  beasts  they  should  die  by 
mangling  of  dogs,  or  affixed  to  crosses,  or  doomed  to  flames, 
and,  when  day  had  departed,  should  be  burned  for  purpose  of 
nocturnal  illumination.  Nero  had  offered  his  gardens  for 
that  spectacle,  and  was  exhibiting  a  circus  show,  mixing  with 
the  crowd  in  the  garb  of  a  charioteer  or  standing  on  a  car. 
Whence,  although  towards  persons  guilty  and  deserving  the 
most  exemplary  punishment,  there  arose  pity,  as  if  not  for 
public  good  but  unto  the  savagery  of  one  man  they  were 
being  sacrificed." 

Let  the  reader  of  this  chapter  thus  literally  translated 
judge  whether  it  fits  in  with  either  chap,  xliii  or  xlv,  which 
fall  so  naturally  together.  Let  him  note  that  the  whole  story 
is  intrinsically  improbable  ;  that  it  implies  a  very  old  and 
long-established  and  numerous  church  in  Rome,  and  a 
hatred  on  the  part  of  the  people  that  seems  at  that  time 
quite  incredible  ;  that  no  proper  meaning  can  be  attached 
to  "were  confessing" — confessing  what?  Arnold  naturally 
replies:  the  charge  of  ''firing  the  city."  But  that  seems 
wholly  incredible.  Surely  they  had  not  fired  it,  and  would 
not  lie  against  themselves.  Ramsay  thinks  they  confessed 
they  were  Christians  ;  Von  Soden  even  so  translates  it ! 
Doubtless.  But  Christianity  was  not  then  a  capital  offence  ; 
it  was  only  the  crime  of  burning  Rome  that  could  bring 
down  on  them  such  condign  punishment.  Moreover,  these 
"first  seized"  not  only  confess  but  implicate  an  "immense 
multitude."  In  what?  In  firing  the  city?  Impossible! 
They  were  not  guilty.  In  being  Christians?  Equally  impos- 
sible. There  was  not  an  immense  multitude  of  Christians  in 
Rome  ;  and  even  if  we  understand  only  a  few  score  by  this 
multitudo  ingensj  it  seems  impossible  that  the  few  first  seized 
would  betray  the  whole  Christian  community  to  such  a  monster 
as  Nero.  That  would  have  been  neither  wise  as  serpent  nor 
harmless  as  dove.  Here,  then,  the  story  is  unbelievable. 
Note,  again,  that  the  spectacle  must  have  endured  for  a  long 
time,  else  surely  the  Roman  mob,  used  to  such  sights,  would 
not  have  felt  pity  for  a  class  of  hated  criminals  who  had 


248        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

burned  two-thirds  of  Rome  and  caused  unspeakable  ruin  and 
woe.  And  why  do  Suetonius  {Ner.^  38)  and  Dio  Cassius 
(62,  16,  i)  and  Pliny  {N.  H.y  xvii,  i,  i,  5),  who  all  have  no 
doubt  that  Nero  himself  ordered  the  conflagration,  and  who 
must  have  known  of  such  a  long-continued  slaughter  of 
innocents,  why  do  they  never  even  remotely  allude  to  such 
a  tremendous  matter?  Lastly,  when  did  this  persecution 
take  place?  Naturally,  one  would  suppose  that  the  report 
started  at  once,  while  men's  minds  were  wild  with  excitement, 
as  did  the  rumour  of  Nero's  fiddling  mid  the  flames  of  Rome. 
But  no  one  can  gain  such  an  idea  from  chap,  xliv,  which 
mentions  the  report  after  the  account  of  Nero's  architectural 
reconstruction,  and  indicates  that  he  took  severe  measures 
not,  as  would  be  natural,  in  the  heated  state  of  public  feeling, 
but  only  long  after,  and  because  the  report  refused  to  abate. 
This  is  not,  indeed,  incredible,  but  it  is  certainly  perplexing. 

And  what  can  be  the  force  or  reference  of  "  meanwhile  " 
{mterea)y  with  which  the  next  chapter  (xlv)  opens?  Ifjjve 
omit  chap,  xliv,  the  reference  is  obvious,  the  term  is  so 
appropriate  as  to  be  almost  unavoidable  :  Nero  was  rebuild- 
ing Rome  on  a  scale  of  unexampled  grandeur  at  incalculable 
outlay  of  imperial  treasures.  "What  an  abyss  of  expense! 
Whence  came  the  necessary  funds?"  involuntarily  exclaims 
the  reader.  The  author  answers :  Meanwhile  Italy,  the 
provinces,  the  allies,  the  free  states,  the  very  sanctuaries  of 
the  gods  were  devastated  to  meet  the  prodigious  cost.  Now 
insert  chap.  xliv.  At  once  the  connection  is  broken,  the 
thought  is  left  hung  in  the  air,  extraneous  and  remotely 
related  matters  distract  the  attention,  and  when  the  subject 
is  resumed  in  chap,  xlv  there  is  found  nothing  in  chap,  xliv 
to  which  the  "  meanwhile  "  can  refer — for  it  is  unreasoning 
to  say  "  Nero  was  burning  Christians  and  the  people  were 
moved  to  compassion,  meanwhile  the  empire  was  plundered." 
We  must  go  back  to  chap,  xliii  to  find  the  natural  attach- 
ment for  chap,  xlv — a  clear  indication  that  the  intervening 
chapter  has  been  interpolated. 

{c)  Does  someone  (as  Von  Soden)  object  that  the  style  is 
too  Tacitean  not  to  be  genuine?  We  reply  that  quite  as 
good  imitations  are  frequent  enough.  In  his  Letters  to  Dead 
Authors   Mr.    Andrew   Lang   has   reproduced   admirably  a 


THE  SILENCE  OF  TACITUS  249 

dozen  widely  diverse  styles,  none  of  them  at  all  like  his  own. 
Such  a  tour  de  force  is  exceptional,  but  it  shows  that  the 
limits  of  possibility  in  such  matters  are  very  wide.  Besides, 
are  we  sure  that  the  style  is  really  so  much  like  that  of 
Tacitus  ?  Careful  scrutiny  has  perhaps  not  yet  been  made, 
but  there  are  certainly  counter  indications.  We  pass  over 
the  well-known  facts  that  the  text  is  here  particularly  waver- 
ing ;  that  it  is  strange  that  Tacitus  should  speak  of  Pontius 
Pilate  merely  as  procurator,  without  specifying  of  what, 
whereas  such  a  form  of  speech  was  most  natural  for  the 
interpolator ;  that  the  extremely  harsh  judgment  of  the 
Christians  is  puzzling  in  the  intimate  friend  of  Pliny,  from 
whom  he  would  almost  surely  have  learned  better  ;  that  the 
"vast  multitude"  is  an  exaggeration  more  than  Tacitean,  and 
not  at  all  paralleled  by  the  iacuit  immensa  strages  of  An.y 
vi,  19/  and  we  would  fix  attention  solely  on  one  purely 
stylistic  consideration,  the  expression  humani  generis.  The 
whole  sentence  has  sorely  vexed  the  wits  of  commentators, 
but  especially  these  words.  Muretus  (following  Faernus  ?) 
boldly  strikes  out  the  word  humani^  and  understands  by 
generis  the  Christian  race  !  Acidalius  sees  that  this  cannot 
be,  and  accordingly  alters  humani  into  Romani  i  they  were 
condemned  for  hatred  of  the  Roman  race  !  Indeed,  it  seems  f) 
almost  impossible  that  Tacitus  should  have  written  humani 
generis.  Everywhere  else  he  writes  generis  humani,"^  It  is 
in  the  last  degree  improbable  that  such  a  consummate  stylist  \ 
as  Tacitus  would  here  just  this  once  deviate  from  his  life-long 
habit,  especially  as  the  inverse  order  produces  with  the  / 
foregoing  word  a  disagreeable  hiatus  :  odio  humani.  No 
very  delicate  ear  is  needed  to  perceive  that  odio  generis  is  / 
a  much  pleasanter  collocation.  Besides,  the  whole  weight  of 
Tacitean  related  usage  falls  against  the  inversion.  It  is  the 
fixed  custom  of  the  historian  to  modify  genus  by  following 
and  not   preceding  words.      Thus    genus    hominum    (three 

*  The  slaughter  is  called  immense  because  it  struck  "all"  {cunctos)  the 
implicated  friends  of  Sejanus,  without  regard  for  age  or  sex  or  other  condi- 
tions ;  but  a  multitude  is  huge  only  by  its  mere  number. 

^  As  An.,  iii,  59  ;  xii,  14  ;  Hist.,  i,  30  ;  iii,  68  ;  v,  25  ;  Ag.,  ii.  Editors  in 
general  make  no  note  of  this  fact.  After  this  study  was  complete,  the  writer 
observed  the  remark  of  Nipperdey  :  ^^  humani  generis,  Sonst  sagt  Tac.  stets 
in  der  gewohnlichen  Ordnung  genus  humanum,''' 


250        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

times,  almost  the  same  as  genus  humanum),  genus  anima- 
lium^  belli^  militum^  mortalium^  mortis^  questus  pensty 
orandi^  maiorum^  telorum,  spectaculoruniy  studiorum,  pugnce^ 
Arsacisy  vitce^  and  generis  regii.  Apparent  exceptions  to 
this  rule  are  readily  seen  to  be  due  to  rhetorical  considera- 
tions, especially  to  the  desire  to  maintain  the  favourite 
order :  adjective,  genitive  (modified),  noun,  as  in  omne 
mortalium  genus  (An.,  xvi,  13),  novum  officii  genus  {Hist. ^ 
i,  20),  and  to  make  emphatic,  as  in  oppidanum  genus 
(An.,  vi,  15),  pernix  genus  {Hist,^  ii,  13).  We  may  affirm, 
then,  with  much  confidence  that  the  inversion  in  question  of 
itself  stamps  the  passage  as  not  probably  from  the  hand  of 
Tacitus. 


By  three  entirely  independent  lines  of  inquiry  we  are  led 
to  precisely  the  same  result.  Look  at  it  as  you  will,  the 
chapter  wears  the  appearance  of  being  interpolated.  Indeed, 
it  must  be,  not  unless  one  of  these  signs  fail,  but  unless  they 
all  fail,  unless  all  are  simultaneously  and  in  the  same  sense 
misleading.  Even  if  the  doubt  raised  by  each  one  of  these 
separate  inquiries  were  not  very  strong,  even  if  it  still  left 
the  chances  two  to  one  in  favour  of  the  genuineness,  yet  the 
chance  that  all  three  would  thus  simultaneously  deceive 
would  be  only  eight  in  twenty-seven  ;  the  chances  would 
be  nineteen  to  eight  in  favour  of  interpolation.  We  have  no 
choice  then.  Coerced  by  this  consilience  of  results,  we  must 
regard  the  passage  as  probably  interpolated,  unless  there  be 
some  strong  antecedent  reason  in  favour  of  genuineness  and 
against  interpolation. 

Is  there  any  such  reason?  Certainly  not.  The  whole 
history  of  post-Apostolic  and  patristic  literature  shows  that 
interpolation  was  a  most  familiar  favourite.  In  fact,  it  would 
rather  seem  strange  if  such  an  opportunity  had  been  neglected. 
We  conclude,  then,  that  this  famous  chapter,  as  it  now  stands, 
is  with  compelling  probability  to  be  ascribed  to  another  hand 
than  that  of  Cornelius  Tacitus.  But  even  if  entirely  genuine 
and  uncorrupted,  it  would  still  be  worthless  in  evidence,  for 
it  merely  states  a  rumour  about  an  alleged  occurrence  of 
nearly  a  hundred  years  agone.     Accordingly,  the  passage  is 


OTHER  PAGANS  :  FINAL  REMARKS  251 

in  all  likelihood  inadmissible  in  court ;  but  even  if  admitted, 
it  could  prove  nothing  to  the  point. 


OTHER  PAGANS  :  FINAL  REMARKS 

The  allusions  of  Suetonius  to  the  Christians  are  the 
following  :  **  Judaeos  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  tumultuantes 
Roma  expulit "  {ClaudiuSy  xxv).  "  Afiflicti  suppliciis  Chris- 
tiani,  genus  hominum  superstitionis  novas  et  maleficae " 
{NerOy  xvi).  Both  of  these  appear  too  slight  for  the  basis  of 
any  judgment. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  no  reference  to  the  Founder 
of  Christianity.  The  force  of  the  impulsore  Chresto  is  un- 
certain. It  may  refer  to  some  Roman  Jew  named  Chrestus, 
who  stirred  up  his  compatriots  to  riot,  or  it  may  refer  to 
Messianic  agitation  among  the  Jewish  populace,  to  their 
disputes  among  themselves  about  the  Messiah,  the  Chrestus. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  there  is  here  no  implication  of  the  life  and 
death  in  Galilee  and  Judea.  Dio  Cassius,  however,  says 
(ix,  6)  he  ''did  not  expel  "  them,  but  forbade  their  assembling, 
and  dissolved  their  clubs  authorised  by  Gains.  On  the  other 
hand.  Acts  xviii,  2,  refers  the  presence  in  Corinth  of  Aquila 
and  Priscilla  to  this  decree  of  Claudius  expelling  "  all  the 
Jews  from  Rome  " — a  statement  almost  certainly  exaggerated. 

The  second  mention  occurs  in  a  list  of  severe  regulations 
made  in  Nero's  time.  If  genuine,  it  would  show  merely 
that  "  Christians  "  were  known  as  early  as  Nero,  which  would 
add  nothing  to  our  knowledge,  and  that  they  were  on  some 
occasions  condignly  punished.  Possibly  the  notice  in 
Tacitus  is  merely  an  expansion  of  the  brief  deliverance  by 
Suetonius.  A  much  more  probable  cause  of  the  "  punish- 
ments "  would  be  some  such  disturbances  as  occurred  under 
Claudius  impulsore  Chresto^  or  provoked  Tiberius  to  expel  the 
Jews  from  Rome  (Suet.,  Tib.,  xxxvi).  Among  the  latter  were 
included  similia  sectantes^  whom  also  Tiberius  Urhe  submovit 
sub  poena  perpetuce  seTDitutis^  nisi  obtemperassent.  The 
sectantes  are  thought  to  be  converts  to  Judaism  ;  possibly  they 
were  incipient  Christians.  The  words  nisi  obtemperassent 
seem  to  indicate  great  turbulence  or  unrest  among  the  Jews 


252         THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

under  Tiberius  near  the  supposed  date  of  the  crucifixion. 
This  seems  intrinsically  highly  probable,  at  least  to  us  who 
regard  the  whole  Christian  movement  as  the  outcome  of 
generations,  even  centuries,  of  agitation  among  Jews  and 
their  proselytes.  Sharp  separation  between  Jews  and 
Christians  does  not  seem  possible  till  the  second  century, 
especially  the  era  of  Bar  Cochab. 

The  letter  of  Pliny  to  Trajan  may  also  be  quoted  in  this 
connection.  It  says  nothing  of  the  origin  or  Founder  of 
Christianity  ;  at  most  it  tells  only  of  the  practices  of  the 
Christians  in  Bithynia  about  no  a.d.  There  is  no  implica- 
tion, not  even  the  slightest,  touching  the  purely  human  reality 
of  the  Christ  or  Jesus.  Whether  this  correspondence  of 
Trajan  and  Pliny  be  genuine  or  not  is  accordingly  quite 
indifferent  for  the  purpose  of  this  discussion.  Any  investiga- 
tion of  the  matter  would  be  superfluous  at  this  stage  of  the 
argument.  Lucian  (120-200  a.d.),  in  his  De  Morte  Peregrini^ 
xi,  41,  in  Alexander^  xxv,  31,  and  in  the  spurious'  Philo- 
patrisy  12,  makes  mention  of  **  Christians "  and  the  ''man 
impaled  in  Palestine,"  but  only  under  the  Antonines  ;  Dio 
Cassius  also,  but  220  a.d. 

Herewith  the  references  to  Christianity  in  pagan  literature 
before  150  a.d.  are  exhausted.  After  that  date  the  Gospel 
story  had  certainly  taken  definite  form  ;  it  is  widespread 
among  Christians,  who  are  themselves  numerous  throughout 
the  empire  ;  it  has  certainly  reached  the  ears  of  the  heathen, 
and  any  number  of  allusions  in  profane  writers  would  merely 
attest  the  currency  of  the  Gospel  story,  but  would  supply  no 
testimony  whatever  to  its  authenticity.  It  seems  useless, 
then,  to  quote  this  literature  any  further.  We  close  this 
scrutiny,  therefore,  with  this  result,  already  announced : 
Profane  history  supplies  no  testimony  whatever  to  the  purely 
human  character  of  Jesus, 

In  order  to  estimate  properly  the  value  of  this  argument 
from  silence,  we  must  remember  that  apparently  the  profane 
writers  could  have  had  no  motive  in  suppressing  information 

*  In  his  "  Le  Christianisme  4  Byzance  "  {Rev.  Archd^  1902,  I,  pp.  79-1 10), 
republished  In  Cultes,Mythes,  et  Religions,  I,  pp.  363-394,8.  Reinach  summarises 
the  work  of  many  learned  predecessors,  and  shows  clearly  that  Philopatris  is 
the  production  of  **  a  Christian  anti-humanistic  Greek  "  towards  the  close  of 
the  tenth  century. 


OTHER  PAGANS  :  FINAL  REMARKS  253 

if  they  possessed  it.     Christianity  was  for   them  merely  a 

i  pernicious   and   despicable  superstition;^   they  would   have,/ 

jj  been  rather  pleased  to  trace  it  back  to  a  criminal  crucified  atj| 

1' Jerusalem.     On    the   other   hand,    it    is    unlikely   that    anyr 

reference  by  The  pagans  would  have  been  allowed  by  the 

Christians  to  perish.     These  latter  were  very  jealous  of  all 

such  material  of  argumentation,  and  cherished  it,  as  is  shown 

vividly   by  the  admitted    fact    that    they   even   invented   it  1 

diligently. 

Possibly  the  heathen  may  have  felt  little  interest  in  the 
crucifixion,  its  antecedents,  and  its  consequents ;  but  the 
same  cannot  be  said  of  Josephus.  As  a  Palestinian  Jew,  a 
professional  historian  and  a  chronicler,  it  seems  altogether 
impossible  that  he  should  not  have  known  or  have  heard 
of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus.  He  tells  us  minutely  enough, 
if  somewhat  obscurely,  of  John  the  Baptist  (Arch,y  xviii,  5,  2), 
but  John  was  in  no  way  comparable  with  Jesus.  In  fact,  he 
fills  his  pages  with  events  altogether  trivial  by  the  side  of 
the  words  and  deeds  of  the  Nazarene.  It  is  not  only  to  us, 
at  this  1,900  years'  remove,  in  the  perspective  of  history,  that 
the  events  appear  in  such  relative  significance.  There  was 
nothing  in  the  career  of  John  to  match  the  execution  on 
Calvary  ;  nothing  to  pair  with  the  works  of  Jesus,  minimise 
them  as  you  may.  If  Jesus  was  purely  human,  then  he  was 
an  astounding  personality  ;  in  name  and  fame  the  Baptist 
must  have  been  comparatively  insignificant.  Consider,  too, 
how  closely  the  twain  were  related,  the  Forerunner  and  the 
Messiah.  For  the  gossipy  annalist  to  know  of  John,  but  not 
of  Jesus,  would  be  as  if  the  contemporary  historian  of  the 
Reformation  should  know  of  Zwingli,  but  not  of  Luther. 

We  dismiss,  then,  the  hypothesis  that  Josephus  was 
ignorant  of  the  Christ,  if  the  latter  was  purely  human,  as 
altogether  impossible.  But,  knowing  of  him,  could  he  have 
passed  him  by  in  silence  intentionally?  It  seems  hardly 
possible.  If  Josephus  was  a  Christian  (in  secret),  surely  he 
would  let  pass  no  such  opportunity  to  do  his  faith  inestimable 

*  The  terms  used  by  Tacitus,  Pliny,  and  Suetonius  are  strikingly  alike,  and 
suggest,  but  do  not  prove,  some  kind  of  interdependence  or  common  depend- 
ence :  Exitiabilis  superstitioy  superstitionem  pravam  et  immodicam^  super- 
stitionis  novce  et  maleficce. 


/ 


254        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

service.  If  he  was  sincerely  an  orthodox  Jew  (as  almost 
certainly  he  was,  so  the  Christian  writers  themselves  attest), 
he  must  have  believed  that  his  countrymen  did  right  in 
rejecting  the  pretender;  he  must  have  rejoiced  in  their  action. 
I  Why,  then,  suppress  it?  Or  even  if  he  was  uncertain  in 
mind,  then  he  must  have  pondered  the  matter,  must  have 
deemed  it  of  high  importance ;  and,  as  it  occupied  his 
thoughts,  why  did  he  forbear  all  expression  ?  No !  we 
I  cannot  understand  the  silence  of  the  historian,  except  on  the 
'supposition  that  Jesus  was  unknown  to  him  historically.  It 
was  precisely  this  circumstance  that  puzzled  the  Christians 
themselves  of  the  early  centuries,  and  induced  one  of  them  to 
cut  the  Gordian  knot  by  interpolating  Section  3.  In  fact, 
the  marvel  would  be  if  some  one  had  not  made  just  such  an 
interpolation.  As  already  observed,  such  insertion  of  apt 
material  at  proper  places  was  a  favourite  form  of  that  early  logic. 
Bishop  Lightfoot  admits,  with  apparent  irritation,  that 
Josephus  has  preserved  a  "stolid  silence  about  Christianity," 
but  thinks  this  "  cannot  be  owing  to  ignorance  ;  for  a  sect 
which  had  been  singled  out  for  years  before  he  wrote,  as  a 
mark  for  imperial  vengeance  at  Rome,  must  have  been  only 
too  well  known  in  Judea."  Of  course,  the  allusion  is  to  the 
Neronic  persecution,  and  the  reasoning  sounds  plausible. 
But  we  have  just  seen  that  this  persecution  is  a  matter  for  the 
very  gravest  doubt.  Moreover,  we  see  no  reason  why  the 
Messianic  agitators  in  Rome  should  take  their  cue  from 
Palestine,  or  why  the  name  "  Christian "  might  not  have 
been  known  in  Rome  even  earlier  than  in  Palestine.  In 
fact,  the  name  was  not  Palestinian,  if  we  may  believe  Acts 
xi,  26;^  it  was  applied  to  the  disciples  at  Antioch,  and  was 
for  an  uncertain  period  only  on  the  lips  of  enemies  (not, 
however.  Christians,  but  Chrestians).^  We  see,  indeed,  no 
reason  why  such  a  movement  might  not  have  started  inde- 
pendently in  various  places  and  nearly  simultaneously. 
That  there  was  originally  any  unity  or  central  dependence 
in  the  propaganda  is  decisively  negatived  by  Acts  in  more 
than  one  place,  as  already  set  forth  in  Der  vorchristliche 
Jesus.     It  seems  unquestionable  that  the  greatest  variety  of 

*  Cf.  xxvi,  28 ;  I  Peter  iv,  i6. 

*  From  XpT}(rT6s=Xpi<XT6s,  Blass,  Gram.  N,  T.  Grk.^  pp.  8,  63. 


OTHER  PAGANS  :  FINAL  REMARKS  255 

faith  prevailed  in  the  early  communities  ;V  from  Rome  to 
Jerusalem  no  inference  is  allowable. 

Moreover,  be  it  said,  not  only  does  the  fact  that  the 
Gentile  called  groups  of  the  new  faith  by  that  contemptuous 
name  of  "  Chrestians  "  by  no  means  imply  that  these  recog- 
nised the  name,  and  thought  of  themselves  as  distinct  from 
Jews  and  proselytes,  but  the  opposite  seems  attested  by 
Acts  xxi,  20,  where  it  is  said  to  Paul  :  "  Thou  seest,  brother, 
how  many  myriads  there  are  among  the  Jews  of  them  that 
have  believed,  and  all  are  zealots  for  the  law."  These,  then, 
had  by  no  means  separated  themselves  from  the  faith  of  their 
fathers  ;  they  were  still  one  with  the  people. 

If,  then,  Josephus  knew  of  Christianity  in  Palestine,  as 
is  likely,  he  knew  of  it  as  one  among  many  shades  of 
religious  enthusiasm  or  conviction,  which  had  not  detached 
itself  from  the  general  mass,  which  had  not  yet  taken 
definite  shape  and  outline.  As  thus  inchoate  and  nebulous, 
or  confounded  with  the  Essenes,  it  may  have  appeared  to 
him  of  little  significance,  and  easily  have  been  passed  over 
when  he  treated  of  the  principal  sects  of  Jewish  philosophy 
{B,  J.^  II,  8;  Arch.^  xviii,  i).  It  is  only  when  we  assume 
the  current  hypothesis  concerning  the  origin  of  Christianity 
that  the  silence  of  Josephus  appears  strange  and  '^  stolid." 
But  if  it  came  ''not  by  observation,"  so  that  one  could  say, 
"  Lo  here  ! ";  if  its  coming  was  like  the  gentle  play  of  summer 
lightning,  illuming  the  whole  circuit  of  the  Mediterranean, 
shining  all  round  nearly  simultaneously,  it  may  very  well 
have  long  escaped  recognition  as  a  distinct  phenomenon. 
Especially  if,  as  seems  now  to  be  proved  decisively,^  it  was 
in  large  measure  a  mystery-v^X\g\ow  propagated  in  great 
secrecy,  if  it  was  first  heard  in  the  ear  and  only  much  later 
proclaimed  on  the  house-top, ^  if  the  "beautiful  deposit"^  of 
doctrine  was  committed  to  the  novitiate  under  solemn  and 
awful  circumstances,  and  only  after  "  the  beautiful  con- 
fession"  had  been  made  under  imposition  of  hands  ''before 
many  witnesses,"^  then  such  a  secret  cult,  carefully  "guarded," 

^  "Z^s   sectes,  si   nombreuses  dks   les  premiers  temps    du    Christianisme." 
(Reinach,  Cultes,  Mythes,  et  Religions^  i,  397.) 

=  In  the  present  volume.  3  Matt,  x,  27  ;  Luke  xii,  3. 

4  TrapadriKif],  i  Tim.  vi,  20;  2  Tim.  i,  12,  14.  5  i  Tim.  vi,  12,  13. 


256        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

might  long  escape  the  notice,  or  at  least  the  interested  atten- 
tion, of  a  Josephus.  Such  reflections  seem  to  break  com- 
pletely the  force  of  the  great  Bishop's  argument,  of  which 
the  sinew  lies  in  the  tacit  assumption  of  all  that  theory  of  the 
beginnings  of  Christianity  which  we  set  out  to  disprove. 

How,  then,  shall  we  sum  up  the  situation  ?    Thus  : — 

{a)  It  is  morally  certain  that  the  Josephine  passage 
{Arch.,  xviii,  3,  3)  is  a  Christian  interpolation. 

{b)  The  Josephine  passage  concerning  James  {Arch.,  xx, 
9,  i)  has  certainly  been  tampered  with  by  Christian  hands, 
and,  as  it  now  reads,  is  almost  surely  an  interpolation. 

{c)  The  chapter  in  Tacitus  lies  under  the  very  gravest 
suspicions. 

{d)  The  sentences  in  Suetonius  may  be  genuine,  but  they 
attest  nothing  strictly  relevant.  Like  may  be  said  of  the 
Pliny-Trajan  correspondence. 

{e)  Even  if  the  utmost  should  be  conceded  to  these  pagan 
authorities,  they  would  still  bear  witness  to  two  things  only  : 
(i)  That  so  early  as  Nero  there  were  so-called  Christians  or 
Chrestians  in  Rome,  and  that  they  fell  under  the  extreme 
displeasure  of  that  emperor.  (2)  That  so  early  as  perhaps 
A.D.  117  the  origin  of  the  Christian  cult  was  referred  to  a 
Christ  that  was  said  to  have  been  crucified  in  Judea  by  Pontius 
Pilate  (say  a.d.  30)  eighty  or  ninety  years,  nearly  three 
generations,  before. 

Further  than  this  these  profane  depositions  do  not  go. 
It  is  seen  at  once  that  they  do  not  touch  the  real  point  at  issue, 
and  we  may  now  re-state  as  fully  proved  our  first  thesis  ; 
Extant  profane  literature  is  silent  concerning  the  life,  career, 
and  death  of  a  purely  human  Founder  of  Christianity. 

But  may  there  not  be  non-extant  profane  testimony,  over 
which  the  oblivion  of  centuries  has  settled  ?  Impossible  ! 
For  remember  that  the  Christians  were  keen-witted  and 
numerous  ;  that  they  were  nurtured  in  age-long  controversy  ; 
that  they  had  every  reason,  incentive,  and  opportunity  to 
preserve  any  and  every  profane  witness  to  the  traditional 
origin  of  their  system,  which  would  have  been  invaluable  in 
their  debate  with  unbelievers.  Men  like  Justin,  who  peered 
into  every  cranny  and  crevice  of  Scripture  for  confirmation  of 
their  story,  like  Clement  and  the  apologists  who  ransacked 


ADDENDUM  I.  257 

every  corner  of  pagan  literature  for  materials  of  argument, 
like  Melito  and  Tertullian  and  the  whole  industrious  hive  of 
interpolators  and  pseudonymists  who  invented  history  and 
scriptures  wholesale  as  needed — not  six  generations  of  these, 
one  and  all,  would  have  neglected  or  overlooked  any  and 
every  profane  testimony  in  their  own  behalf,  when  even  a 
single  one  would  have  been  the  end  of  controversy. 

No  !  The  fact  that  no  Christian  writer  cites  any  such 
testimony  is  decisive  proof  that  there  was  no  such  testimony 
to  cite  ;  and  we  may  now  finally  affirm  that  the  negative 
external  witness,  of  contemporaneous  history  and  literature, 
is  as  clear,  as  strong,  as  complete,  as  conclusive,  as  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  it  is  possible  for  such  witness  to  be.  The 
negative  internal  witness  of  the  New  Testament  itself  has 
already  been  found  to  be  eloquent  and  unequivocal.  Positive 
counter-proofs  in  great  number  and  variety  all  converge  like 
meridians  upon  the  same  thesis.  In  a  word,  the  purely  human 
Jesus  of  the  critics  is  denied  and  the  Divine  Jesus  of  Proto- 
Christianity  is  affirmed  by  every  form  of  consideration  that 
has  yet  been  adduced.  What  else  is  needed  to  shape  the 
judgment  of  unbiassed  reason  ? 


ADDENDUM  I. 


The  reader  may  not  unnaturally  ask,  *'  But  what  has  the 
illustrious  Guglielmo  Ferrero  to  say  on  this  subject?"  His 
notable  work  on  the  Greatness  and  Decline  of  Rome  comes 
down  to  14  A. D.,  just  half-a-century  short  of  the  Conflagration  ; 
but  elsewhere,  as  in  his  Lecture  on  Nero  {Characters  and 
Events  of  Roman  History^  pp.  103- 141),  he  glances  at  the 
flames,  though  scarcely  with  a  severely  critical  eye.  **The 
history  of  Cassar's  family,  as  it  has  been  told  by  Tacitus  and 
Suetonius,"  he  expressly  rates  as  a  mere  "sensational  novel,  a 
legend  containing  not  much  more  truth  than  the  legend  of  [the] 
Atrides  "  (p.  138);  and  yet,  strange  to  say,  precisely  where 

this  novel  is  least  credible,  where  it  ceases  to  be  intelligible 

s 


^5^        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

even,  and  where  the  apparent  attestation  is  reduced  one-half, 
being  that  of  Tacitus  alone,  unsupported  by  Suetonius,  pre- 
cisely there  he  accepts  it  eagerly,  not  merely  at  par,  but  rather 
at  a  premium,  and  without  the  smallest  grain  of  critical  salt 
to  save  it.     Witness  the  following  quotations  : — 

"An  inquiry  into  the  causes  of  the  conflagration  was 
ordered.     The  inquest  came  to  a  strange  conclusion.     The 

fire   had   been   started   by   a   small   religious  sect whose 

name  most  people  then  learned  for  the  first  time  :  the  Chris- 
tians. 

"  How  did  the  Roman  authorities  come  to  such  a  con- 
clusion ?  That  is  one  of  the  greatest  mysteries  of  universal 
history,  and  no  one  will  ever  be  able  to  clear  it.  If  the 
explanation  of  the  disaster  as  accepted  by  the  people 
was  absurd,    the   official   explanation   was    still    more   so " 

(P-  130- 

And  again:   " but  it  certainly  was  not  philosophical 

considerations  of  this  kind  that  led  the  Roman  authorities  to 

rage    against    the   Christians.     The    problem,    I    repeat,    is 

insoluble.     However     this    may    be,    the    Christians    were 

declared    responsible    for    the  fire ;    a   great   number  were 

taken  into  custody,  sentenced  to  death,  executed  in  different 

ways,  during  the  festivals  that  Nero  offered  to  the  people  to 

appease  them.     Possibly  Paul  himself  was  one  of  the  victims 

of  this  persecution  "  (p.  133). 

"  Behold  how  small  a  fire  how  great  a  wood  enkindles  !  " 
How  much  more  about  this  **  inquiry  "  and  "  inquest "  does 
Ferrero  know  than  did  Tacitus,  and  yet  Tacitus  is  Ferrero's 
only  authority,  and  that,  too,  an  authority  already  emphatically 
discredited  as  "  a  sensational  novel  "  !  The  plant  of  history 
would  seem  to  be  a  hardy  annual,  and  at  times  might  be 
likened  to  a  grain  of  mustard-seed.  It  is  interesting  to 
surprise  it  now  and  then  as  it  grows. 

But  the  important  point  is  that  the  brilliant  Italian 
distinctly  and  repeatedly  declares  "the  problem  is  insoluble." 
And  well  he  may.  For  while  no  one  will  question  the  keen- 
ness of  his  analytic  faculty  or  the  vigour  of  his  reconstructive 
imagination,  yet  even  these  and  more  can  hardly  avail  to 
make  clear  the  general  detestation  of  the  few  "  pious  idealists  " 
whom  "the  people  used  to  call  Christians,"  while  the  same 


ADDENDUM  I.  259 

name  had  never  yet  been  heard  "by  the  most  of  the  people"; 
or  how  to  explain  how  "a  great  number"  (strictly  "an 
immense  multitude " — as  Church  and  Brodrib  render  it) 
could  be  sentenced  and  executed  out  of  "  a  small  and  peaceful 
congregation." 

Gibbon,  and  more  especially  Schiller,  have  argued  that  it 
was  the  Jews  who  were  slaughtered  in  such  numbers  and 
amid  such  torments.  Impossible,  as  we  have  seen  ;  for  in 
that  case  Josephus  would  have  known  and  made  mention  of 
such  a  calamity  to  his  countrymen.  And  why  should 
Tacitus  commit  the  blunder  of  substituting  the  nearly  un- 
known Christians  for  the  familiar  Jews?  Others  have 
guessed  that  the  Jews  under  the  patronage  of  Poppasa  incited 
Nero  against  the  Christians — their  own  kinsmen  !  But  not 
only  is  this  conjecture  a  wholly  gratuitous  calumny  on  the 
Jews,  but  it  presupposes  a  bitter  hatred  and  an  ancient  grudge 
of  Jews  against  their  Christian  brothers,  such  as  was  unreal 
and  impossible  at  that  time  even  in  Jerusalem,  much  more 
among  the  liberal  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  (compare  Acts 
xxi,  20;  xxviii,  17-25).  Moreover,  if  the  Jews  had  slandered 
the  Christians  in  such  infamous  and  ruinous  fashion,  why 
does  not  at  least  one  among  so  many  Christian  authors,  all 
of  whom  would  have  eagerly  exploited  any  such  fact  or  any 
such  rumour,  make  some  mention  or  give  some  hint  of  such 
a  prodigious  iniquity  ?  No !  Ferrero  is  right,  and  his 
admission  is  significant :  it  is  quite  impossible  to  under- 
stand the  "  mystery  "  of  the  Tacitean  passage  regarded  as 
genuine  ;  "  no  one  will  ever  be  able  to  clear  it."  What,  then, 
is  the  obvious  suggestion  ?  Is  it  not  that  the  incomprehen- 
sible chapter  is  spurious,  or  at  least  altered  beyond  recogni- 
tion from  some  unknown  original  ? 

The  temptation  is  great  to  hazard  some  speculation  as  to 
the  genesis  of  this  chapter  (44),  and  to  connect  it  with  the 
strange  fortunes  of  the  Annals,  as  preserved  in  the  two 
unique  Medicean  manuscripts ;  however,  we  will  not  put 
forth  upon  any  such  sea  of  conjecture,  but  will  hug  close  the 
safe  shore  of  Ferrero's  avowal  that  the  assumed  "genuine- 
ness of  the  passage  in  Tacitus  " — so  far  from  being  "  not  open 
to  reasonable  doubt "  —  confronts  us  with  an  insoluble 
riddle,  "one  of  the  greatest  mysteries  of  universal  history." 


26o        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 
ADDENDUM  II, 


I. 

The  foregoing  article  having  very  naturally  provoked  hostile 
criticism,  it  may  be  well  to  note  some  of  the  more  important, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  introduce  some  additional  evidence. 

It  has  been  urged,  as  by  Kampmeier  (The  Monist, 
January,  191 1,  p.  112),  that  "the  Tacitus  passage  is  copied 
by  Sulpicius  Severus "  (Neque  ulla  re  Nero  efficiebat,  quin 
ab  eo  jussum  incendium  putaretur.  Igitur  vertit  invidiam 
in  ChristianoSy  actseque  in  innoxios  crudelissimse  quces- 
tiones ;  quin  et  novae  mortes  excogitatae  ut  ferarum  tergis 
contecti  laniatu  canum  interirent.  Multi  crucihus  affixi  aut 
flamma  usti,  plerique  in  id  reservati,  ut  cum  defecisset  dies, 
in  usum  nocturni  luminis  urerentur. — Chron.^  ii,  29).  It  is 
seen  that,  although  neither  author  has  copied  *'  almost 
verbally,"  yet  the  agreements  in  phrase  (here  in  italics)  are 
in  at  least  two  places  so  marked  as  to  exclude  the  notion  of 
independent  origin.  But  what  is  the  dependence?  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Sulpicius  has  taken  from 
Tacitus  (except  that  his  date  is  near  400  a.d.).  Indeed,  it 
seems  far  likelier  that  the  author  of  the  Tacitean  passage 
has  simply  worked  up  the  Sulpician  passage,  or  perhaps 
still  likelier  that  each  is  drawing  from  some  unknown 
common  source.  Nothing  can  be  proved  decisively  at  this 
point. 

It  is  vain  to  urge  that  Sulpicius  has  apparently  drawn 
upon  Tacitus  in  describing  the  unnatural  nuptials  of  Nero. 
Says  Tacitus  in  Ann.  xv,  37  :  "Ipse  per  licita  atque  inlicita 
fcedatus  nihil  flagitii  reliquerat  quo  corruptior  ageret,  nisi 
paucos  post  dies  uni  ex  illo  contaminatorum  grege  (nomen 
Pythagorce  fuit)  in  modum  solemnium  conjugiorum  denup- 
sisset,  Inditum  imperatori  flammeuni^  visi  auspices,  dos  et 
genialis  torus  et  faces  nuptiales,  cuncta  denique  spectata, 
quce  etiam  in  femina  nox  operit."  And  Sulpicius  {Chron,, 
ii,  28,  2)  :  "  Adnotasse  contentus  sum  hunc  eo  processisse  ut 
Pythagorce    cuidam    in    modum    solemniorum    conjugiorum 


ADDENDUM  II.  261 

nuheret ;  inditumque  imperatori  flammeum,  dos  et  genialis 
torus  et  faces  nuptiales,  cuncta  denique  qucB  vel  in  femina 
non  sine  verecundia  conspiciuntur  spectata.^^ 

The  coincidences  are  italicised,  and  it  is  seen  even  more 
clearly  that  the  passages  are  not  independent.  Yet  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  Sulpicius  was  quoting  from  Tacitus. 
For  Tacitus  himself  had  his  sources  (since  he  wrote  at  nearly 
two  generations'  remove  from  Nero),  which  are  quite 
unknown  to  us,  but  must  almost  certainly  have  contained 
some  such  specifications  as  appear  now  in  the  two  historians. 
There  is,  then,  no  good  reason  why  the  two  may  not  be 
quoting  from  a  common  source.  Precisely  such  phenomena 
meet  us  at  every  turn  in  historico-literary  investigations. 

But  even  if  it  were  granted  that  Sulpicius  is  here  quoting 
from  Tacitus,  we  could  not  conclude  that  he  was  quoting  in 
the  other  case  likewise.  That  would  be  such  an  out-and-out 
inference  from  particular  to  particular  as  even  Mill  would 
not  allow.  Ifj  indeed,  we  knew  that  Sulpicius  had  quoted 
from  Tacitus  in  the  one  case,  and  if  we  knew  that  the  Tacitean 
passage  existed  at  the  time  of  Sulpicius  in  the  other  case, 
then  we  might  with  probability  conclude  that  Sulpicius  was 
quoting  the  passage  as  from  Tacitus  in  the  other  case.  Even 
then  we  could  still  not  conclude  (in  the  presence  of  the  con- 
siderations already  adduced)  that  the  passage  was  actually 
written  by  Tacitus,  if  we  were  not  sure  that  Tacitus  had  not 
been  interpolated — and  sure  we  can  never  be.  In  view, 
then,  of  all  these  facts,  especially  of  these  three  ifs^  it  appears 
impossible  to  find  in  Sulpicius  any  valuable  evidence  against 
the  view  here  maintained.  Indeed,  it  seems  strange  to  call 
into  court  such  witnesses  as  Sulpicius  Severus  and  the 
fabricators  of  the  Paul-Seneca  correspondence.  When  all 
the  elder  witnesses  are  dumb,  will  you  break  silence  with 
words  not  uttered  till  nearly  300  years  after  the  event  in 
question  ?  Will  you  establish  by  an  obscure  chronicler  of 
to-day  some  all-important  feature  of  the  London  fire  of  1666, 
some  supreme  dramatic  moment  unattested  by  Pepys  or 
any  other  authority?  Such  is  not  the  method  of  historical 
criticism. 

Some  persons  in  desperation  have  referred  to  certain  lines 
in  Juvenal,  Seneca,  Martial ;  but  these  do  not  seem  worth 


262         THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

any  notice  whatever.  At  best  and  at  most  they  can  merely 
attest  what  is  not  in  dispute — namely,  that  such  cruel  and 
unusual  punishments  were  not  so  unusual  as  we  might  desire 
or  suppose.  But  this  makes  not  against  but  for  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  Tacitean  passage  is  supposititious.  For  the 
inventor  would  naturally  invent  along  the  lines  of  common 
knowledge,  and  would  not  needlessly  fly  in  the  face  of 
probability. 

Some  years  ago  attention  was  emphatically  called  to  the 
supposed  testimony  of  that  notable  mosaic,  the  ''  Ascension 
of  Isaiah,"  to  the  supposed  martyrdom  of  Peter  under  Nero, 
and  it  is  now  recalled  thereto,  as  by  Kampmeier  and  others. 
Without  discussing  the  "  Beliar "  of  this  ''Ascension,"  it 
may  suffice  to  cite  the  very  recent  judgment  of  Weinel,  who 
displays  notoriously  little  sympathy  with  the  new  criticism 
(Hennecke's  Neutestamentliche  Apokryphen,  p.  205)  :  *'  It 
were  indeed  most  highly  interesting,  if  we  had  here  an  older 
witness  of  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  in  Rome  ;  but  that  cannot 
be  made  certain." 

It  is  a  grave  mistake  to  suppose  that  early  Christian 
writers  had  no  temptation  to  cite  profane  witness  to  the 
historicity  of  the  Jesus,  because  **  that  was  a  settled  fact " 
with  "  their  Christian  readers."  It  was  not ''a  settled  fact" 
even  with  all  ''Christian  readers."  The  existence  of  the 
Docetists  and  other  still  more  enlightened  Gnostics,  as  well 
as  the  fierce  polemic  of  Tertullian,  Irenceus,  and  others, 
shows  clearly  that  this  so-called  "  fact "  was  questioned,  and 
even  rejected,  in  many  Christian  quarters.  Besides,  these 
Christian  writers  did  by  no  means  write  merely  for  "  Christian 
readers."  Often  they  had  a  pagan  audience  in  mind.  Their 
frequent  "  Apologies  "  and  "  Exhortations  "  were  addressed 
exclusively  to  the  "  Gentiles  "  or  "  Greeks."  Moreover,  their 
bitter  need  of  historical  attestation  is  unequivocally  witnessed 
by  their  repeated  invention  of  just  such  attestations,  as  in 
Josephus  and  Tertullian  (already  cited,  p.  243),  in  Justin 
and  others. 

The  all-important — indeed,  the  decisive — moment  in  the 
whole  matter,  which  was  perhaps  not  sufficiently  stressed  in 
the  original  article  and  cannot  be  stressed  too  strongly,  is 
this  :  It  is  not  now,  and  has  never  been,  denied  that  Nero 


ADDENDUM  II.  263 

may  have  persecuted  Christians,  may  even  have  executed 
some,  possibly  Paul  or  Peter,  or  both.  On  this  point  we 
have  no  decisive  evidence.  The  writer  has  no  interest  of 
any  kind  in  questioning-  over-strictly  the  supposed  testimonies 
to  a  Neronian  persecution.  It  is  the  Tacitean  persecution, 
described  in  the  famous  forty-fourth  chapter,  that  is  called  in 
question,  as  admittedly  inexplicable,  and  not  only  unsupported 
by  testimony,  but  virtually  excluded  by  unbroken  silence  in 
every  quarter,  even  where  its  fame  would  have  resounded 
loudest  and  longest.  Here  is  the  heart  of  the  matter.  It  is 
vain  to  pile  up  hints  of  a  mere  Neronian  persecution,  even  were 
they  wholly  unambiguous  and  not  so  hopelessly  equivocal  ; 
all  such  are  irrelevant.  It  is  the  Tacitean  persecution  that 
calls  for  verification,  and  none  is  forthcoming.  When  the 
skull  of  a  man  is  broken,  it  is  idle  to  fix  attention  on  a  fracture 
of  his  arm.  Now,  since  it  is  not  pretended  that  Tacitus 
invented  the  story  in  question,  in  discrediting  the  authen- 
ticity we  also  discredit  the  genuineness,  as  it  stands.  What 
may  have  lain  at  its  base  it  is  needless  to  conjecture. — That 
this  Tacitean  account  can  hardly  be  accepted  at  its  face-value 
seems  to  be  growing  clearer  even  to  the  liberal  critical  con- 
sciousness. Witness  the  recent  work  of  Geffcken,  Aus  der 
Werdezeit  des  Christentums, 

Since  one  apocryphal  document  ("  Ascension  of  Isaiah  ") 
has  been  called  to  the  stand,  it  may  be  well  to  admit  some 
others.  In  the  "  Martyrdom  of  Paul "  (Lipsius,  Acta 
Apocrypha^  I,  102-107),  referred  by  Zahn  to  a.d.  150-180, 
we  find  the  Apostle  executed  by  Nero  in  the  midst  of  a  fierce 
persecution  at  Rome,  which,  however,  is  wholly  unrelated 
to  the  conflagration  ;  the  Tacitean  passage  and  motive  are 
not  only  not  mentioned,  they  are  plainly  excluded.  Of 
course,  the  whole  story  is  fiction  ;  but  if  the  forty-fourth 
chapter,  or  any  tradition  consistent  with  that  chapter,  had 
been  known  to  the  apocryphist,  it  is  hardly  possible  that 
he  would  have  unnecessarily  contradicted  it  by  necessary 
implication.  Again,  in  the  Acts  of  Peter  (Lipsius,  A,  A,^ 
I,  45-103),  according  to  Schmidt  dating  from  a.d.  200-210, 
we  find  this  pillar  Apostle  also  executed  under  Nero,  hut  by 
the  prefect  Agrippa  and  for  personal  reasons,  his  preaching 
having  alienated   many   wives  and   concubines    from   their 


264        THE  SILENCE  OF  JOSEPHUS  AND  TACITUS 

husbands  and  lords.^  Thereupon  Nero  is  angry,  having 
wished  to  punish  Peter  still  more  severely,  refuses  to  speak 
with  Agrippa,  and  meditates  the  extermination  of  all  the 
brethren  discipled  by  Peter,  but  is  dissuaded  by  a  vision, 
and  remains  satisfied  with  the  sole  sacrifice  of  the  Apostle. 
Here,  again,  the  Tacitean  account,  along  with  any  similar 
tradition,  is  positively  excluded.  To  be  sure,  this  martyrdom 
is  imaginary,  at  least  in  its  details  ;  but  the  mere  imagination 
shows  convincingly  that  the  great  Neronian  persecution  in 
connection  with  the  conflagration,  as  detailed  in  the  forty- 
fourth  chapter,  had  no  place  in  the  Christian  consciousness  of 
that  author,  and  hence  of  that  era.  When  we  turn  to  the 
Acts  of  John,  we  see  how  eager  these  romancers  were  to 
attach  their  fancies  to  historical  facts.  Had  any  such  attach- 
ment been  possible  in  the  case  of  the  martyrdoms  of  Paul 
and  Peter,  it  would  have  been  zealously  effected.  The 
complete  absence  of  this  Tacitean  persecution  from  attested 
Christian  consciousness,  in  which  it  would  have  rooted  itselt 
ineradicably,  cannot  be  understood  without  impugning  the 
actuality  of  the  persecution  itself. 

Finally,  the  whole  story  presents  all  the  hall-marks  of  a 
fiction,  of  a  gradual  growth  in  the  Christian  mind.  The 
nearer  we  approach  the  event  in  question,  the  vaguer  and 
dimmer  it  becomes.  As  we  touch  it,  lo  !  it  dissolves  into 
air.  For  one  hundred  years  after  its  supposed  occurrence 
the  mighty  persecution  is  not  mentioned.  The  earliest 
Christian  writers,  those  who  would  certainly  have  had  a 
personal  or  next  to  personal  knowledge  of  the  alleged 
execution  (of  the  Christians  as  incendiaries),  betray  no  con- 
sciousness that  anything  of  the  kind  had  ever  taken  place. 
They  speak  fluently  about  the  sufferings  and  martyrdoms 
of  their  brethren.  Some  allusions  to  the  alleged  Neronian 
holocaust  lay  directly  across  their  path.  Why  do  they  all 
avoid  it?  In  the  second  century  the  notion  of  Nero  as  per- 
secutor begins  to  present  itself  more  and  more  frequently, 
and  details  of  his  cruelty  multiply  more  and  more.  Still 
there  is  no  hint  of  any  Tacitean  persecution,  of  any  con- 
nection with  the  great  conflagration  ;  on  the  contrary,  such 

*  Is  this  an  echo  of  the  words  of  Clemens  Romanus  :  "  Zeal  hath  alienated 
wives  from  husbands  "  (vi)  ? 


ADDENDUM  II.  365 

a  connection  is  by  implication  emphatically  excluded.  At 
length,  in  the  fourth  century,  it  is  suggested,  in  a  fabricated 
correspondence,  that  Christians  and  Jews  had  been  punished 
as  incendiaries.  At  last,  in  the  fifth  century,  we  read  the 
details  in  the  terse  Sulpicius,  "the  Christian  Sallust."  In 
the  famous  forty-fourth  chapter  of  the  Annals  of  Tacitus 
we  find  still  greater  elaboration.  The  suggestion  seems 
irresistible  that  the  chapter  represents  an  advanced  stage  of 
a  process  that  had  been  slowly  at  work  for  hundreds  of  years. 
Are  not  such  evolutions  familiar  to  the  student  of  history? 
Does  he  hesitate  to  recognise  them  when  much  less  clearly 
revealed  in  profane  records  ?  Do  not  precedents  for  such 
interpolations  abound  ?  Was  there  not  the  strongest  motive 
and  even  temptation  to  give  historic  colour  to  the  whole 
Christian  doctrine,  especially  to  its  central  concept,  the 
Jesus?  Does  not  even  Tertullian  (in  the  passage  quoted) 
dare  to  represent  Tiberius  as  convinced  by  '*  intelligence 
from  Syria  Palestine"?  Does  not  Justin  {A.^  i,  35,  48)  still 
earlier  appeal  to  a  fictive  official  report  of  the  trial  of 
Jesus  ?^  In  fact,  unless  I  widely  err,  this  strain  towards 
historisation,  especially  in  the  Western  Church,  has  been 
the  main  determinant  of  old  Christian  literature  and  dogma. 

It  is  both  interesting  and  important  to  note  that  Windisch 
(TheoL  Rundschau^  April,  1912,  p.  117),  though  unsympa- 
thetically  reviewing  Ecce  Deus^  seems  to  concede  the  con- 
tentions of  this  Part  IV  practically  in  full,  saying:  ''The 
ungenuineness  of  the  Christ-passages  in  Josephus  is  strikingly 
demonstrated  ;  fully  as  worthy  of  attention  appear  to  me  his 
deductions  (Ausfuchrungen)  concerning  Tacitus." 


^  e/c  TUiv  eVt  W-Ovrlov  IltXdrou  yevojxivwv  Ektojv. 


PART  V. 


THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO 
REPENTANCE 


STATISTICS 

The  census  of  the  use  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  term 
"Kingdom  "is  at  first  sight  rather  formidable.  Its  appear- 
ances number  fifty-four  in  Matthew,  nineteen  in  Mark,  forty- 
four  in  Luke  ;  but  only  four  in  John,  eight  in  Acts,  one  in 
Romans,  four  in  i  Cor.,  one  in  Galatians,  one  in  Ephesians, 
two  in  Colossians,  one  each  in  i  and  2  Thessalonians,  two 
in  2  Timothy,  three  in  Hebrews,  one  in  James,  one  in 
2  Peter,  six  in  Revelation.  Let  the  Millian  logicians 
depreciate  perfect  induction  as  they  may,  such  a  complete 
enumeration  as  the  foregoing  can  hardly  fail  to  be  instructive, 
whether  or  no  it  involve  any  sure  inference.  Some  things, 
at  least,  appear  to  lie  on  its  very  face.  It  is  plain  that  as  a 
ruling  idea  the  Kingdom  is  present  in  the  Synoptics  in  a 
sense  in  which  it  is  not  present  in  any  of  the  other  New 
Testament  writings.  But  even  in  these  it  is  by  no  means 
present  in  equal  measure.  Deducting  five  references  in 
Matthew,  as  many  in  Mark,  and  six  in  Luke,  as  not  to  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  we  have  for  the  Synoptics  in  order  forty- 
nine,  fourteen,  thirty-eight.  It  is  seen  that  the  use  in  Mark 
is  not  of  the  same  order  of  magnitude  as  in  Matthew  and 
Luke.  This  may  be  due  in  a  measure  to  the  prevailing 
narrative  form  of  Mark,  whereas  Matthew  and  Luke  are  more 
concerned  with  sayings,  parables,  and  discourses. 

We  notice  further  that  **  Kingdom  of  the  heavens "  is 
almost  the  exclusive  form  in  Matthew,  occurring  thirty-three 
times  ;  only  four  times  we  find  *'  the  Kingdom  of  God  " 
(xii,  28;  xix,  24;  xxi,  31,  43),  and  three  times  there  is  a 
reference  to  **  Thy  Kingdom,"  or  *'The  Father's  Kingdom" 

267 


268    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

(vi,  lo,  ;  xiii,  43  ;  xxvi,  29),  once  to  the  "  Kingdom  of  the 
Son  of  Man  "  (xvi,  28) ;  other  sporadic  cases  do  not  call  for 
notice.  In  Mark,  however,  the  *'  Kingdom  of  God  "  appears 
fourteen  times,  the  other  uses  being  sporadic.  In  Luke  the 
"  Kingdom  of  God "  appears  thirty-two  times ;  the  other 
uses  are  scattered,  and  from  both  Mark  and  Luke  the 
Matthsean  form,  "Kingdom  of  the  heavens,"  is  entirely- 
absent.  Elsewhere  "  Kingdom  of  God  "  appears  thirteen 
times ;  "  Kingdom  of  the  heavens "  never.  This  latter 
phrase,  then,  is  strictly  Matthaean.  It  might  seem  to  charac- 
terise the  author  himself  (or  his  school)  rather  than  his  source, 
for  in  the  parallel  passages  in  the  Gospels  we  find  the  one 
form  in  the  first,  the  other  in  the  second  and  third — e.g,^ 
*'  Nigh  is  come  the  Kingdom  of  the  heavens  "  (Matthew  iii,  2 ; 
X,  7),  but  "  Nigh  is  come  the  Kingdom  of  God  "  (Mark  i,  15 ; 
Luke  X,  11).  It  seems  strange,  then,  that  the  ''Kingdom  of 
God  "  should  appear  at  all  in  Matthew.  In  one  case  (xix,  24) 
"  Kingdom  of  the  heavens  "  is  preferred  by  Tischendorf ;  in 
another  (xii,  28)  the  whole  verse  is  unrepresented  in  Mark, 
but  agrees  almost  exactly  with  Luke  (xi,  20),  whence  it  would 
seem  to  be  a  later  insertion — a  conjecture  greatly  strengthened 
by  the  use  of  (jidavio  in  the  late  (Alexandrine)  sense  of  come, 
a  word  not  elsewhere  found  in  the  Gospels.  The  other  two 
examples  in  Matthew  are  found  in  xxi,  31,  43 — in  a  chapter 
whose  text  makes  us  often  pause.  Clearly  it  has  been  subject 
to  much  alteration.  In  the  parable  of  the  two  sons,  in  the 
answer  of  the  Jews,  it  was  with  the  Christian  Fathers  a 
question  whether  should  be  read  ''the  first"  or  "  the  last." 
The  Sinaitic  Syriac  confirms  the  reading  "  the  first,"  against 
the  judgment  of  Tischendorf ;  some  primitive  corruption  is 
certainly  present.  The  verse  31  can  lay  no  claim  to  origi- 
nality ;  it  seems  to  be  a  late  addition.  Similarly  verse  43  is 
in  a  region  of  proved  interpolation  ;  verse  44  is  no  longer 
adopted  in  critical  texts.  The  late  character  of  verse  43  is 
plain  on  its  face,  for  the  writer  speaks  of  taking  away  the 
Kingdom  of  God  from  the  Jews  and  giving  it  to  another 
people,  an  idea  utterly  discordant  with  the  notion  of  the 
Kingdom  that  prevails  in  the  Gospel — namely,  of  something 
coming,  but  not  then  possessed  by  the  Jews  ;  yea,  in  fact, 
never  possessed  by  them.     Hence  we  may  with  confidence 


STATISTICS  269 

mark  all  these  passages  as  late  accretions  to  the  earlier  form 
of  the  Gospel,  which  then  appears  never  to  have  used  the 
phrase  ''  Kingdom  of  God." 

Hereby  the  first  Gospel  is  distinctly  marked  as  Hebraic, 
as  in  large  measure  thought  out,  if  not,  indeed,  more  or  less 
completely  composed  originally,  in  Aramaic.  In  later  Old 
Testament  writings  Deity  is  spoken  of  as  God  of  heaven 
(2  Chr.  xxxvi,  23  ;  Ez.  i,  2,  efpasst?n;  Neh.  i,  4,  5;  ii,  4,  20  ; 
Jon.  i,  9  ;  Dan.  ii,  18,  el  passim  ;  once,  indeed,  Dan.  iv,  23, 
**  Until  thou  have  known  that  rulers  are  heavens,"  heaven 
seems  to  be  identified  with  God).  In  i  Maccabees  the  name 
of  God  is  avoided,  heaven  and  other  circumlocutions  taking 
its  place.  The  Rabbis  also  shunned  the  awful  name,  often 
using  ''Place"  (Maqom;  cp,  the  Gnostic  Topos)  instead. 
Wetstein  (on  Matthew  xxi,  25)  illustrates  the  frequent 
Talmudic  use  of  heaven  instead  of  God.  It  is  indeed  plain 
and  undisputed  that  the  Matthasan  form  breathes  a  genuine 
Hebraic  spirit.  But  when  Wellhausen  says  that  the  people, 
especially  in  Galilee,  were  in  Jesus's  day  not  so  far  advanced, 
and  that  he  spake  as  the  people  and  not  as  the  scribes,  we 
recognise  the  opinion  of  a  great  critic  ;  yet  we  cannot  quite 
recognise  "  he  spake  as  the  people  "  as  the  equivalent  of  *'  he 
taught  as  one  having  authority."  When  Wellhausen  further 
says  that  Jesus  calls  God  regularly  God,  and  not  the  Father 
in  heaven,  one  would  hardly  suppose  that  in  Matthew,  where 
this  latter  term  so  abounds,  he  names  God  thirty  times,  and 
in  Mark  only  twenty.  There  is,  then,  no  avoidance  of  the 
word  "  God  "  by  the  Jesus  of  Matthew  ;  and  Wellhausen's 
reason  for  regarding  '*  Kingdom  of  God  "  as  the  original 
expression  seems  imaginary. 

The  statistics  of  this  word  "  Father  "  as  applied  to  God 
are,  indeed,  not  without  interest.  In  Matthew  we  find  it  so 
used  forty-five  times  ;  in  Mark,  five  ;  in  Luke,  seventeen  ;  in 
John,  118;  in  Acts,  three  (all  at  the  beginning — i,  4,  7; 
ii,  33)  ;  in  Romans  and  i  Cor.,  each  four;  in  2  Cor.,  five; 
in  Gal.,  four  ;  in  Eph.,  eight ;  in  Phil.,  three  ;  in  Col.,  four  ; 
in  I  Thes.,  four;  in  2  Thes.,  three;  in  i  Tim.,  two;  in 
2  Tim,  one  ;  in  Titus,  one  ;  in  Philm.,  one  ;  in  Heb.,  three  ; 
in  James,  three  ;  in  i  Peter,  three ;  in  2  Peter,  one ;  in 
I  John,  twelve  ;  in  2  John,  four ;  in  Jude,  one  ;  in  Rev.,  five. 


270    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

The  term  is  seen  to  be  familiar  to  nearly  every  page  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  an  especial  favourite  with  John,  and  in 
less  degree  with  Matthew  and  the  author  of  Ephesians. 
This  fact  is  interesting  as  characterising  the  circles  of 
thought  from  which  these  compositions  emanated,  but  it  has 
no  significance  as  indicating  aught  about  the  Jesus. 

The  conception  of  this  Kingdom,  whether  of  God  or  of 
the  heavens,  seems  to  be  unmistakably  and  very  distinctly 
Hebraic.  In  the  book  of  Daniel  we  find  (ii,  44)  that  "the 
God  of  heaven  shall  set  up  a  kingdom  that  shall  never  be 
destroyed."  In  iv,  3,  "  His  Kingdom  (is)  an  everlasting 
Kingdom,"  "from  ason  to  aeon"  (34).  In  vii,  13,  14,  this 
everlasting  and  indestructible  Kingdom  is  given  (seemingly 
by  the  Ancient  of  Days,  primeval  deity)  to  "One  like  the 
Son  of  Man,"  apparently  to  a  man-like  Being,  in  contra- 
distinction from  the  beasts  to  which  transient  dominion  had 
been  given,  which  can  signify  nothing  but  the  people  Israel. 
In  vii,  18,  22,  25,  27,  it  is  specified  that  this  everlasting, 
imperishable  Kingdom  belonged  of  right  and  of  fact  to  the 
"saints  of  the  Most  High,"  who  are  therefore  symbolised  by 
the  manlike  figure.  In  the  first  seven  chapters  of  Daniel 
the  preferential  term  for  Kingdom  is  Malku^  which,  being 
the  Chaldee  form,  is  almost  peculiar  to  Daniel,  who  uses  it 
fifty-five  times  (used  also  in  Ezra  four  times) ;  in  the  next 
chapters,  viii,  x,  xi,  the  term  uniformly  used  (thirteen  times) 
is  Malkuth  (used  also  in  i,  i,  20;  ii,  i),  which,  however, 
occurs  in  eleven  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  is  yet 
a  later  form  rare  in  earlier  Hebrew.  This  fact  seems  inter- 
esting as  indicating  certain  otherwise  well-known  lines  of 
cleavage  in  Daniel,  Other  familiar  Hebrew  terms  for 
Kingdom,  as  Melukah,  Mamlakah,  and  Mamlakuth,  do  not 
occur  in  Daniel  (except  Melukah  in  i,  3,  in  the  sense  of 
King).  In  the  Talmud  use  varies  between  Malku  and 
Malkutha  (Syriac). 

NATURE  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

It  thus  appears  that  the  earliest  form  of  the  conception 
was  Kingdom  of  God  (as  early  as  Psalm  cxlv,  11,  13,  though 
the   phrase   itself  does   not  yet  occur) — that    is.    Kingdom 


NATURE  OF  THE  KINGDOM  271 

established  by  God  and  possessed  by  the  Saints  (Israel),  in 
which,  therefore,  God,  the  One  God,  was  worshipped.  As 
the  term  '*  God "  came  to  be  used  less  and  less,  being 
supplanted  by  such  paraphrases  as  "Heaven,"  "Place," 
"the  Holy  Blessed  He,"  "  Lord  of  Ages,"  "  Who  spake,  and 
all  became,"  "  Alone  of  the  Ages,"  etc.,  the  original  Kingdom 
of  God  became  regularly  Kingdom  of  the  Heavens  {Malkuth 
Hash-Shamayyim).  When  this  latter  phrase  is  found 
exclusively  in  Matthew,  the  former  exclusively  in  Mark  and 
Luke,  the  indication  is  clear  that  the  two  phrases  (the  former 
more  Judaically  coloured)  have  proceeded  from  different 
spheres  of  influence  ;  but  no  inference  as  to  the  Jesus  having 
used  the  latter,  having  spoken  as  did  the  people,  appears 
to  be  allowed  or  suggested. 

Weber  has  shown  clearly  that  in  rabbinic  circles  the 
Kingdom  of  God  or  the  Heavens  was  equivalent  to  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Law  ;  to  take  on  the  latter  was  to  take  on 
the  former  ;  where  reigned  the  Law,  there  reigned  God — and 
conversely.  But  even  here  the  idea  of  an  organisation  was 
not  absent.  The  Kingdom  did  not  consist  in  the  mind  or 
temper  or  obedience  of  the  individual,  but  in  the  organised 
totality  of  all  the  subjects  of  the  law,  of  the  worshippers  of  the 
One  God.  The  individuals  are  members  of  the  Kingdom,  as 
the  native  or  naturalised  American  is  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  Of  course,  such  cannot  be  the  New  Testament  sense, 
in  so  far  as  the  Laiso  is  concerned  ;  and  yet  this  latter  sense 
must  be  closely  related  to  the  rabbinic,  and  is,  in  fact, 
derivable  therefrom,  on  changing  Law  into  Gospel. 

Into  the  wilderness  of  discussion  concerning  the  Messianic 
expectation  and  related  notions — as  of  the  Son  of  Man — it  is 
not  our  purpose  to  enter  at  presents    The  one  point  to  be 

*  The  question  concerning-  the  "  Son  of  Man  "  and  the  flock  of  cognate  ideas 
and  problems  is  one  of  the  most  obscure  and  intricate  hieroglyphs  that  have 
ever  puzzled  the  investigator.  It  seems  hardly  proper  to  broach  such  a  deep- 
rooted  and  wide-branching  theme  unless  in  its  own  especial  volume.  It  is 
enough  at  this  point  to  state  the  fact,  of  which  the  proof  is  reserved,  that  all 
the  meridians  of  evidence  converge  on  the  propositions  that  both  the  systematic 
application  of  the  term  to  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  and  the  equally  systematic  non- 
application  in  the  other  New  Testament  Scriptures,  as  well  as  the  extra- 
canonic  witness,  Jewish,  pagan,  apocryphal,  show  that  the  term,  however 
derived,  denoted  not  a  mere  man,  a  magnetic  rabbi,  but  a  heavenly  and  divine 
Being,  who  might,  indeed,  appear,  like  Zeus  or  even  Jehovah,  clothed  in  the 
garment  of  humanity,  but  is  entirely  misunderstood  when  conceived  as  a  man, 


272     THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

made  clear  is  that  throughout  the  New  Testament,  particularly 
in  the  Gospels,  the  Kingdom  is  some  kind  of  organisation. 
In  most  cases  this  is  so  plain  that  any  attempt  at  proof  the 
reader  might  resent  as  superfluous  and  almost  insulting.  In 
a  few,  however,  the  sense  is  not  so  near  the  surface,  and  there 
might  possibly  be— indeed,  there  has  been — some  diversity  of 
opinion.  It  will  be  necessary,  then,  to  examine  New  Testa- 
ment usage,  especially  in  the  Gospels,  with  sortie  care, 
particularly  the  very  rare  cases  in  which  there  might  seem 
to  be  some  reason  for  doubt.  In  Mark  the  Kingdom  is 
uniformly  represented  as  an  organisation,  or  even  as  an 
organism,  especially  as  growing  gradually  in  secret  (iv,  ii, 
26-32),  and  as  something  that  one  enters  (ix,  47  ;  x,  23, 
24,  25),  even  as  one  is  admitted  into  a  society.  Only  one 
expression  might  at  first  sound  strange  :  ''  Whoever  shall 
not  receive  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  in 
nowise  enter  therein.  And  having  called  them,'  he  blessed 
them,  laying  his  hands  upon  them  "  (x,  15,  16).  But  the 
rabbis  spoke  of  taking  on  the  Kingdom  in  taking  on  the  law, 
and  Mark's  phrase  appears  aimed  at  the  Jewish  party,  who 
were  unwilling  to  receive  the  Kingdom  of  God  composed 
mainly  of  such  little  children — that  is,  of  Gentile  converts. 

In  Matthew  the  same  representation  is  found.  In  xiii,  41 
("  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  Kingdom  all  that  cause 
stumblings," etc.)  the  reference  to  organisation  is  particularly 
clear.  In  Luke  only  we  find  two  verses  (xvii,  20,  21)  that 
might  possibly  indicate  that  the  Kingdom  is  something 
internal,  a  state  of  mind.  ''The  Kingdom  of  God  cometh 
not  with  observation  ;"*  nor  will  they  say,  lo  !  here  it  is,  or 
there  it  is;  for  lo  !  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  among  you."^ 

the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  See  Schmidt's  exhaustive  treatment  in  the 
Encyclop<Edia  Btblica  ("  Son  of  Man  "),  Reitzenstein's  Poimandres,  Hertlein's 
close-reasoned  monograph,  Die  Menschensohnfrage  im  letzten  Stadium^  and 
Badham's  article  on  "The  Title  '  Son  of  Man'"  in  the  Theol.  Tijdschr.  (191 1), 
pp.  395-448,  which  finds  that  "  '  Second  Adam  '  or  *  Saviour  '  was  the  meaning 
which  attached  to  the  term  when  the  Gospels  were  written." 

'  So  reads  Z>,  also  the  Sinaitic  Syriac  ;  the  "  taking  them  in  his  arms  "  is  a 
later  sentimental  variation.  It  seems  clear  that  *'  laying  his  hands  upon  them  " 
indicates  them  as  standing  before  him,  not  as  already  in  his  arms.  Note  also 
Burkitt's  rendering  of  verse  13  :  "And  they  brought  near  to  him  children,  that 
he  should  lay  his  hand  upon  them."  Embrace  is  not  contemplated,  and  almost 
excluded. 

^  /lerA  irapaTTjpi^a-eus.  3  ivrb^  iifiwv. 


NATURE  OF  THE  KINGDOM  273 

This  text  is  the  Gibraltar  of  liberal  critics,  who  translate  it 
"  within  you,"  "  in  your  hearts,"  not  *'  among  you,"  and  main- 
tain strenuously  that  their  Jesus  herewith  formally  rejects  the 
current  notion  of  the  Kingdom  as  something  external  or 
political  or  social-organic,  and  sublimes  the  concept  into  that 
of  a  great  internal  all-regulative  and  transvaluating  spiritual 
Idea.  Let  us  hear  one  of  the  very  greatest,  who  has  brought 
so  much  light  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New.  Well- 
hausen  translates  Ivtoq  vjulCiv  by  "  Innerhalb  von  euch,"  and 
adds,  "es  ist  inwendig  von  euch."  "It  is,  therefore,  some- 
thing quite  other  than  the  future  kingdom  of  the  Jews" — 
which  may  be  readily  granted.  "  But  it  is  also  not  the 
Christian  community  [which  can  by  no  means  be  granted] 
which  in  Matthew  is  ordinarily  understood  thereby" — where 
ordinarily  (gewohnlich)  will  bear  a  great  deal  of  emphasis. 
**The  IvToq  signifies  more  than  Iv  \ik<st,^  (in  the  midst)." 
Where  is  the  proof?  "  Rather  is  the  Kingdom  of  God  here, 
just  as  in  the  parable  of  the  leaven,  conceived  as  a 
principle  that  works  invisibly  in  the  hearts  of  individuals." 
A  beautiful  modern  thought,  which  Chamberlain  has  exploited 
fully,  but  entirely  foreign  to  the  New  Testament.  Observe 
that  Wellhausen  gives  no  proof  whatever.  He  adopts  this 
interpretation  in  the  teeth  of  all  precedent  and  evidence, 
solely  because  it  conforms  to  the  liberal  "  Jesusbild,"  itself  a 
mere  imagination.  He  himself  declares,  in  the  next  sen- 
tence, speaking  of  the  correct  view,  which  he  declares  "  alto- 
gether impossible  ":  "To  be  sure,  in  the  following  address  to 
the  disciples  it  is  nevertheless  treated  as  possible."  In  fact, 
he  admits  an  inherent  inconsistency  (innere  Differenz) 
between  his  own  interpretation  and  the  notion  of  the 
Kingdom  elsewhere  present  in  the  Gospels.  The  truth  is, 
his  exegesis  is  quite  without  any  support  in  the  Gospels,  or 
even  in  the  whole  New  Testament.  The  illustrious  critic 
adduces,  and  can  adduce,  only  one  even  apparent  parallel — 
the  parable  of  the  leaven.  But  is  this  a  real  parallel?  Read 
the  two  parables  (Matthew  xiii,  31-33;  Luke  xiii,  18-21). 
The  first  likens  the  Kingdom  to  a  grain  of  mustard-seed, 
smaller  than  all  the  seeds,  but  growing  up  to  be  a  veritable 
tree,  in  whose  branches  birds  may  dwell.  What  is  the 
meaning  ?     Is  the  Kingdom  here  a  principle  in  the  heart 


274     THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

of  the  individual?  Impossible  !  It  is  manifestly  an  organisa- 
tion, at  first  inconspicuous,  gradually  assuming  colossal 
proportions — which  consists  perfectly  with  the  idea  elsewhere 
presented  in  the  Gospels.  But  the  second  parable?  Since 
the  two  are  given  in  immediate  connection  by  both  Evan- 
gelists, the  presumption  is  that  they  present  the  same  or 
similar  ideas  under  varying  imagery.  "  Another  parable. 
Like  is  the  Kingdom  of  the  heavens  to  leaven,  which  a 
woman  took  and  hid  in  three  measures  of  meal  till  all  was 
leavened."  That  is,  the  Kingdom  is  an  organisation  hid 
now  in  the  great  mass  of  society,  but  gradually  extending 
itself  till  it  includes  the  whole.  What  truer  or  clearer  picture 
of  the  Kingdom,  of  the  Jesus-cult,  of  Christianity,  could  be 
desired?  Why  seek  for  some  other  meaning  when  a  per- 
fectly satisfactory  meaning  lies  on  the  open  hand?  Well- 
hausen  himself  cannot  deny  that  the  meal  typifies  "a  foreign 
substance  (the  world  or  the  Jewish  people?),"  but  he  thinks 
the  Kingdom  is  ''ein  durchdringendes  Prinzip."  The  King- 
dom a  permeative  principle  !  Do  permeative  principles  grow 
like  mustard-plants  ?  He  himself  perceives  that  this  is  mere 
fancy  ;  for  he  says  in  the  next  sentence  :  "  It  is,  however, 
notwithstanding  the  Christian  community."  There!  the  cat 
has  escaped  from  the  bag  !  Call  it  a  penetrative  principle  if 
you  will  ;  but  the  leaven,  the  Kingdom,  remains  the  Christian 
community,  the  secret  organisation  of  the  primitive  disciples, 
who  are  themselves  called  "the  salt  of  the  earth,"  salting  and 
saving  the  whole  social  body. 

It  seems,  then,  that  this,  Wellhausen's  only  parallel 
passage,  runs  directly  counter  to  his  own  interpretation.  It 
must  now  be  added  that  the  translation  of  IvTog  vfiCyv  by 
"  within  you  "  is  quite  impossible,  for  it  is  the  Pharisees 
that  are  addressed,  who  are  certainly  not  here  conceived  as 
having  the  Kingdom  in  their  hearts.  Wellhausen  perceives 
the  difficulty,  at  least  partially,  and  speaks  of  this  address  as 
"auffallend"  (surprising),  but  offers  no  explanation.  Still 
more,  however,  the  Sinaitic  Syriac  relieves  all  doubt  on  the 
subject  by  declaring  unambiguously  "  among  you  "  ("  unter 
euch,"  as  Merx  renders  it),  and  not  *' within  you";  so  Burkitt 
translates  :  *'  For  lo,  the  Kingdom  of  God  among  you  ! " 

Only  a  word  is  necessary  concerning  the  "observation." 


PREACHING  OF  THE  KINGDOM  275 

Since  the  organisation  was  secret,  since  the  cult  was  carefully 
guarded  in  mysteries  and  parables,  of  course  the  Kingdom 
came  not  with  observation,  with  any  open  show  or  manifes- 
tation, and  men  could  not  say  of  it,  "  Lo,  it  is  here,  or  lo, 
it  is  there."  Nothing,  then,  remains  unexplained  in  this 
celebrated  passage,  which  turns  out  to  be  in  complete  accord 
with  the  general  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom. 
To  dwell  on  such  verses  as  John  xviii,  36,  Romans  xiv,  17, 
I  Cor.  iv,  20,  would  not  be  complimentary  to  the  intelligence 
of  the  reader  ;  but  he  may  be  asked  to  reflect  on  Matthew 
xiii,  47,  in  which  the  Kingdom  is  likened  unto  a  net  cast 
into  the  sea  and  catching  both  good  fish  and  bad.  What 
organisation  but  has  unworthy  as  well  as  worthy  members? 
How  impossible  any  other  interpretation  !  And  how 
characteristically  John  has  dramatised  the  parable  into 
history  (xxi,  1-14)  ! 

PREACHING  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

Holding  fast  the  results  thus  far  attained,  that  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  the  organisation  or  society  in  which 
God,  the  One  God,  is  recognised  and  properly  worshipped 
(that  is,  the  community  of  the  monotheistic  Jesus-cult),  we 
must  now  broach  the  interesting  and  important  but  difficult 
question  of  the  preaching  of  the  Kingdom  and  the  call  to 
repentance.  At  this  point,  unfortunately,  the  testimony  is 
neither  quite  so  clear  nor  so  unanimous  as  might  be  desired. 
In  Mark  i,  15,  we  hear  as  the  keynote  of  the  Jesus-preaching  : 
''The  time  is  fulfilled  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand  ; 
repent  ye,  and  believe  in  his  Gospel."  Mark  does  not  say 
that  the  Baptist  preached  the  approaching  Kingdom,  but 
only  the  baptism  of  repentance,  and  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
the  mightier  Coming  One  who  would  baptise  with  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Similarly  Luke,  with  many  additional  details,  but 
with  no  mention  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  first  appears 
in  iv,  43,  as  preached  by  the  Jesus.  In  the  same  sense  the 
Fourth  Evangelist  is  silent.  Turning  to  Josephus  {Ant., 
xviii,  V.  2),  we  read  of  "  John  surnamed  the  Baptist ;  for 
Herod  slays  him,  a  good  man  who  bade  such  Jews  as 
cultivate  virtue  and  practise  justice  towards  one  another  and 


276    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

piety  towards  God  to  join  in  baptism  ;  for  so  indeed  also  the 
baptism  would  appear  acceptable  to  him,  they  using  it  not 
for  apology  for  certain  sins,  but  for  purification  of  the  body, 
supposing  indeed  the  soul  also  thoroughly  purified  before- 
hand by  righteousness."  This  seems  to  be  a  queer  explana- 
tion of  the  "baptism  unto  remission  of  sins,"  but  there  is  no 
hint  of  the  Kingdom.  Josephus  goes  on  to  say  that  the 
people  thronged  this  preacher  and  were  willing  to  do  what- 
ever he  advised  ;  so  that  Herod,  fearing  a  rebellion,  seized  him 
and  sent  him  to  the  castle  Macherus,  where  he  was  put  to 
death.  As  we  can  detect  no  motive  here  for  falsification, 
this  account  would  seem  to  be  about  as  credible  as  anything 
else  in  Josephus  ;  in  any  case,  we  are  not  able  to  control  it. 
It  might  perhaps  consist  with  John's  preaching  the  imminent 
arrival  of  the  Kingdom,  but  certainly  does  not  imply  the 
same. 

In  Matthew  iii,  2,  alone  we  read  that  the  Baptist  came 
preaching  in  the  Wilderness  of  Judasa,  and  saying  :  ''  Repent 
ye,  for  nigh  is  come  the  Kingdom  of  the  Heavens."  Now 
exactly  these  words  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Jesus 
(iv,  17)  as  the  keynote  of  his  preaching,  sounded  only  after 
John  was  cast  into  prison.  We  may  suspect  that  here  there 
is  something  unhistorical.  It  could  hardly  be,  after  John 
had  preached  for  some  considerable  time,  after  he  had  been 
cast  into  prison  and  his  movement  had  spent  its  force,  that 
the  Jesus  would  resume  precisely  his  formula  and  slogan  in 
preaching  in  Galilee.  The  effect  of  such  preaching  had 
already  been  discounted.  People  would  have  said  :  "  Oh  ! 
that  is  an  old  story.  John  told  us  all  that  some  months  ago. 
Now  he's  in  prison."  We  may  say,  then,  with  much 
confidence  that  this  repetition  is  very  improbable. 

Nevertheless,  the  statements  may  shadow  forth  an 
historical  situation.  The  preaching  of  the  Baptist  seems  to 
present  a  Jewish  side  of  the  great  Christian  movement.  Its 
main  content  (according  to  the  Gospels)  appears  to  have  been 
the  Coming  One,  which  was  nearly  related  to  the  Messianic 
expectation,  but  may  have  referred  either  to  Jehovah  himself 
or  to  his  plenipotentiary  representative.  With  this  Coming 
One  seems  also  to  have  been  associated  the  notion  of  a 
judgment.     The  object  of  this  latter  was   in   the  main  the 


REPENTANCE  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  277 

condemnation  of  the  heathen  world  and  the  glorification  of 
Israel,  about  which  the  Apocrypha  and  the  expounders  of  the 
Apocrypha  discourse  interminably,  and  which  might  easily 
and  naturally  pass  over  into  an  overthrow  of  polytheism  and 
establishment  of  the  monotheistic  Jesus-cult.  Concerning 
the  real  intent,  content,  and  extent  of  this  Johannine  move- 
ment we  know  very  little,  and  conjecture  seems  idle.  At 
present  we  must  resign  ourselves  to  ignorance.  The  repre- 
sentations in  the  Synoptics  and  in  Josephus  appear  too 
meagre  to  warrant  any  significant  positive  inference. 

But  what  does  this  preaching  tell  us  about  the  Kingdom  ? 
Wellhausen  (Matthew  iii,  2)  says  :  "  That  the  Kingdom  of 
God — i.e.^  the  judgment  or  the  wrath  to  come — is  nigh  at 
hand."  Surely  he  cannot  mean  to  identify  the  Kingdom 
with  the  Judgment  or  Wrath  ;  he  means  merely  that  the 
coming  of  the  Kingdom  involves  the  coming  of  the  Judg- 
ment and  Wrath.  The  Kingdom  would  seem  to  mean  only 
the  divine  government,  the  rule  of  the  earth  by  God  mediately 
or  immediately.  In  Jewish  minds  this  might  very  naturally 
fuse  with  the  Messianic  Kingship  and  the  exaltation  of  Israel. 
But  in  Gentile  minds  it  would  hardly  do  so.  They  would 
most  probably  have  found  such  a  Kingdom  little  to  their 
taste.  As  preached  to  the  Gentiles  of  Galilee  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Kingdom  of  God  could  hardly  mean  aught  else 
than  the  conversion  of  Pagandom  to  the  worship  of  the  One 
true  God.  This  notion  was  very  closely  related  to  the  pure 
Judaic  notion  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Heavens  as  the  Reign 
of  the  Law,  since  the  heart  of  this  latter  was  the  Shema^ 
"Hear,  Israel,  Yahveh  Our  God  Yahveh  is  One"  (Deut. 
vi,  4).  But  the  two  were  not  quite  the  same.  Inevitably 
the  Kingdom  itself  would  then  consist  of  converts  to  this 
faith.  As  a  body  these  would  form  the  Kingdom,  whose 
essence  would  be  Theoseby — the  worship  of  the  One  God. 

REPENTANCE  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

So  understood,  the  force  of  the  preaching  becomes  clear. 
"Repent"  is  more  properly  "Change  your  minds."  The 
repentance^  is  nothing  but  conversion,  the  Hebrew  shuh^  the 


278    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

Aramaic  tub,  which  is  turning,  Shubu  (turn  ye)  was  the  cry 
of  the  prophets.  Turn  from  what  to  what?  It  is  a  great 
mistake  to  suppose  that  a  moral  reformation  is  primarily 
meant,  though  of  course  it  was  involved  as  a  consequent. 
The  turning  was  always  religious  ;  it  was  from  idolatry  to 
Yahveh-worship,  from   false   religion   to   true.     "  For   they 

served  idols turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways"  (2  Kings  xvii, 

12,  13).  *' Ye  children  of  Israel,  turn  again  unto  Yahveh  " 
(2  Chron.  xxx,  6).  ''Turn  ye  unto  him  from  whom  the 
children  of  Israel  have  deeply  revolted "  (Isaiah  xxxi,  6). 
*'  Return  unto  me,  for  I  have  redeemed  thee  "  (Isaiah  xliv,  22). 
''Return,  thou  backsliding  Israel,"  "Turn,  O  backsliding 
children,"  "Return,  ye  backsliding  children;  I  will  heal 
your   backslidings "    (Jer.    iii,    12,    14,    22).     "Return    now 

everyone   from    his   evil   way Because   my   people    hath 

forgotten  me,  they  have  burned  incense  to  vanity"  (Jer.  xviii, 

11,  15).     Also   Jer.  xxv,   5,  6,  and  xxxv,  15:    "Return  ye 

now  every  man  from  his  evil  way, and  go  not  after  other 

gods."     "Repent  and  turn   from  your  idols "  (Ez.   xiv,  6). 

"Turn,  turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways ye  lift  up  your  eyes 

toward  your  idols"  (Ez.  xxxiii,  11,  25).  "O  Israel,  return 
unto  Yahveh  "  (Hos.  xiv,  1-4).     "  Turn  ye  to  me  "  (Joel  ii, 

12,  13).     "Turn  ye  unto  me turn  ye  now  from  your  evil 

ways Turn  you  to  the  stronghold  "  (Zee.  i,  3,  4  ;  ix,  12). 

"Return  unto  me"  (Mai.  iii,  7).  Similar  are  nearly  one 
hundred  others.  Uniformly,  then,  the  turning  is  to  Yahveh, 
from  false  gods.  To  be  sure,  the  prophet  conceives  this 
conversion  as  bringing  all  good  in  its  train,  just  as  idolatry 
drags  all  evil  {cp.  Rom.  i,  18-32) ;  but  in  every  case  this 
turning  is  from  false  to  true  worship.  We  may  indeed  say 
that  the  conception  of  morality  as  morality  is  scarcely  present 
at  all  in  the  Old  Testament.  Surely  this  does  not  mean  that 
the  Hebrew  did  not  value  morality.  He  valued  it  most 
highly  and  practised  it  diligently — not,  however,  as  primary, 
but  as  secondary  ;  not  as  original  and  independent,  but  as 
dependent  and  derivative.  For  him  the  source  of  moral 
obligation  was  not  found  in  the  nature  of  things  (as  for  the 
Greek),  not  even  in  his  own  nature,  but  in  the  expressed  will 
of  God.  The  seat  of  authority  was  nowhere  on  earth,  but  in 
heaven.     The  basis  of  ethics  was  not  subjective,  but  objective. 


REPENTANCE  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  279 

Morality  was  a  vigorous  growth,  but  rooted  nowhere  in  earth; 
it  was  an  offshoot  from  the  giant  stem  of  religion.  "  If  any 
one  worship  God  (Oeocreprig  y)  and  do  his  will,  him  he 
hears"  (John  ix,  31).  Worship  comes  first,  then  obedience, 
and  therewith  all  is  said.  This  but  echoes  the  dictum  of 
Qoheleth,  **  Hear  the  sum  of  all  [speech]  :  Fear  God  and 
keep  his  commandments  ;  for  this  is  [the  duty  of]  every  man." 
It  is  clear,  to  ethics  is  conceded  no  independent  existence. 
The  prophets  are  unwearied  and  vehement  in  their  exhorta- 
tions to  repentance  and  to  righteousness.  Turn,  turn,  they 
cry  unceasing — from  what?  **  From  your  evil  way."  What 
evil  way  ?  The  context  shows  in  every  case  that  the  evil 
way  is  idolatry  or  some  form  of  unfaithfulness  to  Yahveh- 
worship.  Turn  to  whom,  to  what?  The  same  context  shows 
in  every  case  that  it  is  to  Yahveh  and  his  service. 

Of  all  the  prophets  the  one  in  whom  the  purely  ethical 
comes  clearest  to  the  light  is  Amos.  Yet,  though  for 
rhetorical  purposes  he  sets  forth  the  injustice  and  oppression 
of  the  priestly  and  official  class  with  terrible  vigour,  yet  even 
in  him  the  prime  motive  is  religious.  His  indignation  is 
against  the  false  worship  at  Bethel  and  Dan  and  Gilgal.  It 
is  the  iniquity  of  the  ministers  of  a  false  religion  that  he 
denounces.  After  fierce  predictions  against  the  surrounding 
heathens  he  turns  to  Judah  :  "  Because  they  have  despised 
the  laws  of  Yahveh  and  have  not  kept  his  commandments, 
and  their  lies  caused  them  to  err^  after  which  their  fathers 
walked. "  These  **  lies  "  are  nought  but  idols  ("  Gotzenbilder, " 
Buhl),  as  so  frequently  in  the  Old  Testament.  Next  he 
denounces  Israel,  and,  though  scourging  avarice  and  vice,  he 
lets  us  know  that  it  is  these  as  connected  with  the  State 
religion  of  Jeroboam  that  provoke  him,  for  they  "  profane 

my   holy   name" "in   the    house    of    their    god."     The 

luxury  he  inveighs  against  is  the  luxury  of  the  priests,  the 
pomp  of  the  false  religion  ;  hence  '*  I  will  also  visit  the  altars 
of  Beth-el."  It  is  this  same  half-heathen  service  that  is  so 
emphatically  rejected  in  the  famous  passage  v,  21-26.  It  is 
their  idolatry,  their  worship  of  Moloch  and  Kewan  (Saturn) 
(v,  26,  27),  that  will  land  them  in  captivity.  The  righteous- 
ness and  judgment  of  verse  24  are  only  the  strict  fulfilment 
of  the  Torah  of  Jehovah.     Similarly  in  vi,  13,  '*ye  rejoice  in 


28o    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

Lo-debar,"  whether  this  be  "  nought  thing" — i.e.^  idol — or 
Mahanaim  (2  Sam.  ix,  4  ;  xvii,  27),  a  place  of  idol-worship. 
Also  in  viii,  14,  the  ''sin  of  Samaria"  is  the  false  god  or 
false  worship. 

Even  in  the  most  spiritual  of  the  Psalms  the  case  is  not 
otherwise.  In  51  the  poet  (who  seems  to  be  nothing  else 
than  the  people  Israel  in  captivity)  bewails  his  apparent 
rejection  by  God  ;  he  can  understand  it  only  as  a  punishment 
for  his  (the  people's)  sins.  But  all  the  sin  was  against  God 
and  God  only  ;  ''  against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned  and 
done  evil  in  thy  sight";  that  is,  it  was  not  ethical,  but 
religious.  He  prays  earnestly  for  restoration  to  favour,  in 
which  case  he  will  convert  sinners  and  ''teach  transgressors 
thy  ways";  that  is,  he  will  propagate  monotheism  and  the 
Law.  True,  it  is  said,  verses  16,  17  :  "For  thoudesirest  not 
sacrifice  ;  else  would  I  give  ;  thou  delightest  not  in  burnt 
offering.  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit  :  a 
broken  and  a  contrite  heart,  O  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise."' 
And  naturally,  for  in  captivity  such  forms  of  worship  were 
impracticable  ;  the  will  had  to  be  taken  for  the  deed  ;  but  as 
soon  as  "  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  "  were  rebuilt,  "  then  shalt 
thou  be  pleased  with  the  sacrifices  of  righteousness,  with 
burnt  offering  and  whole  burnt  offering  ;  then  shall  they 
offer  bullocks  upon  thine  altar."  We  all  know  that  the 
reference  of  this  Psalm  to  David  is  quite  impossible.  The 
apex  of  poetic  and  philosophic  merit  is  attained  in  Psalm  139  ; 
yet  the  closing  verses  (19-24)  show  that  the  philosophy  and 
ethics  of  the  writer  are  still  strictly  religious,  that  he  even 
hates  with  perfect  hatred  all  that  do  not  worship  with  him  the 
One  God  of  the  universe. 

Like  holds  for  Isaiah,  even  Deutero-Isaiah.  Large-hearted 
and  spiritual-minded  as  he  is,  nevertheless  before  all  else  he  is 
a  religionist,  a  Yahveh-worshipper,  only  derivatively  and  in 
second  line  a  moralist.  This  thesis  may  be  tested  and  proved 
by  countless  verses.  Consider  the  Great  Arraignment  {chdip,  i). 

^  Even  if  certain  critics  should  be  right  in  holding  that  the  Psalmist  has 
here  attained  a  strictly  "  evangelic  "  standpoint,  the  foregoing  results  would 
not  really  suffer ;  for  it  would  be  only  a  noteworthy  individual  exception,  such 
as  might  readily  arise  without  altering  the  general  state  of  the  case — and  the 
closing  verses  would  then  be  understood  as  a  consciously  corrective  addition 
(Kautzsch). 


REPENTANCE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT         281 

In  spite  of  such  verses  as  17,  the  sin  of  the  people  is  apostasy 
(5),  is  defection  from  Yahveh  (4),  is  idolatry  (21,  29).  In 
ii,  9,  18,  20,  22,  the  land  is  full  of ''  not-gods,"  against  which 
the  prophet  inveighs  with  passion.  In  v,  24,  the  sin  is  the 
same.  In  x,  10,  11,  the  "not-gods"  confront  us  again,  and 
so  on  to  the  end.  The  whole  book  is  intensely  religious,  the 
prophet  champions  the  Yahveh-cult  unweariedly,  and  his 
truly  lofty  ethics  is  a  deduction  from  his  religion.  We 
need  say  little  of  Micah  and  the  rest.  From  i,  6/  iii,  5,  iv,  5, 
V,  13/,  vi,  16,  and  similar  passages,  it  is  clear  that  this  pro- 
phet was  of  the  same  spirit,  that  for  him  also  morality  was  a 
corollary  from  the  worship  of  Yahveh.  Even  in  the  Gospels 
the  case  is  not  really  different.  The  first  commandment  is 
still  the  Shema^  with  the  requisition  of  intense  and  exclusive 
worship  of  the  One  Jehovah-God.  Love  for  neighbour  is  the 
j*^co/z^  and  far  less  emphatic  commandment  (Mark  xii,  28-34). 
We  repeat,  then,  the  prophetic  cry  Suhu  means  always 
one,  and  only  one,  thing — "Turn  ye  "  from  idols  unto  God  ; 
its  content  is  primarily  always  religious,  never  ethical.  The 
Aramaic  prefers  the  later  tuh^  "return,"  but  the  content 
remains  the  same.  Several  times  the  Suh  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  rendered  by  \'KiaTpi<^ix)  (convert)  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  then  generally  rendered  in  Syriac  by  tub.  Repentance 
and  conversion  were  then  essentially  the  same  in  the  apostolic 
consciousness  ;  they  referred  primarily  to  the  turning  away 
from  idols  unto  the  one  living  God.  This  is  clearly  expressed 
in  Acts  XX,  2 1 — "  Repentance  unto  God  " — where  turning  unto 
God  must  be  meant.  Of  course,  it  is  not  affirmed  that 
repentance  does  not  and  can  never  mean  anything  else  but 
this  conversion,  but  only  that  as  the  slogan  of  the  primitive 
preaching  it  meant,  and  could  mean,  nothing  else. 

REPENTANCE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Let  us  examine  New  Testament  usage  still  more  carefully. 
In  Rev.  ii  and  iii  the  verb  is  used  seven  times  :  Ephesus  is 
praised,  but  is  bid  "repent  and  do  the  first  works,"  "because 
thou  hast  left  thy  first  love  "  (ii,  5).  Plainly  some  religious 
error,  some  defect  of  faith  is  meant,  some  falling  away  from 
true  worship ;  there  is  no  hint  of  moral  dereliction.    Pergamos, 


282    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

too,  is  commended,  but  is  also  reproved  for  compromise  with 
idolatry  in  the  matter  of  eating  things  sacrificed  to  idols,  and 
is  bid  repent  solely  on  this  score.  The  repentance  is  purely 
religious  and  non-ethical.  Similarly  Thyatira,  only  more 
explicitly  ;  her  sole  sin  is  this  same  compromise  with  paganism 
in  the  person  of  that  woman  Jezebel,  and  from  this  alone  she 
had  failed  to  repent.  Sardis  meets  with  sharp  reproof,  and  is 
summoned  sternly  to  repentance.  It  is  not  said  specifically 
for  what ;  still,  the  inference  is  sure  that  it  was  religious 
defilement,  some  infection  of  false  worship  ;  for  it  is  said, 
"  Thou  hast  a  few  names  in  Sardis  which  did  not  defile  their 
garments "  (iii,  4).  Laodicea  is  fiercely  rebuked — why  ? 
Plainly  and  solely  for  want  of  zeal  in  the  crusade  against 
polytheism.  The  Church  had  become  secularised  ;  in  the 
sharp  issue  between  the  many  and  the  one  it  did  not  take 
sides  uncompromisingly — it  was  neither  cold  nor  hot.  Hence 
it,  too,  is  exhorted  to  be  ''zealous,  therefore,  and  repent." 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  reference  of  the  term  in 
question  is  purely  religious,  as  elsewhere. 

Once  more,  in  ix,  20,  21,  we  find  "the  rest  repented  not  of 
the  works  of  their  hands,  that  they  should  not  worship  devils, 

and  idols  of  gold neither  repented  they  of  their  murders,  nor 

of  their  sorceries,  nor  of  their  fornication,  nor  of  their  thefts." 
Here  the  repentance  is  again  in  first  line  purely  religious,  a 
turning  from  false  worship.  Of  the  four  additional  specifica- 
tions in  verse  21,  the  second  and  third  are  also  religious,  the 
reference  being  to  heathen  service  ;  while  the  first  and  fourth 
are  either  such  veiled  allusions  or  else  allude  to  offences  in 
some  wise  thought  as  connected  with  idolatry.  The  sufferers 
were  only  idolaters,  '*  only  such  men  as  have  not  the  seal  of 
God  on  their  foreheads"  (ix,  4).  Finally,  in  xvi,  9,  11, 
the  case  is  particularly  clear :  **  They  blasphemed  the  name 

of  the  God and  repented   not  to  give  him  glory and 

blasphemed  the  God  of  heaven and  they  repented  not  of 

their  works."  The  latter  phrase  is  the  same  as  in  ix,  20, 
where  the  works  are  defined  as  works  of  idolatry,  and  the 
object  of  repentance  is  implied  to  be  giving  God  glory ; 
hence  the  repentance  can  be  nothing  else  than  turning  from 
heathenism.  The  testimony  of  Revelation  is  direct,  unequi- 
vocal, decisive. 


REPENTANCE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT         283 

In  2  Cor.  xii,  21,  the  Apostle  speaks  of  many  that  *' re- 
pented not  of  the  uncleanness  and  fornication  and  lascivious- 
ness  which  they  committed. "  It  seems  plain  that  these  severe 
terms  here  designate,  as  so  often  in  the  Scriptures,  religious 
impurity  —  that  is,  some  form  of  idolatrous  deeds,  some 
unifaithfulness  to  God.  In  Acts  ii,  38  ;  iii,  19,  we  have  the 
ostensible  first  preaching,  addressed  apparently  to  Jews,  with 
the  exhortation,  "Repent  and  be  baptised,"  ''Repent  and 
turn  ";  but  it  has  been  shown  in  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  that 
all  this  is  only  part  of  Luke's  scheme  to  make  the  Christian 
movement  issue  solely  from  Jerusalem,  against  the  facts  in 
the  case.  The  author  has  taken  the  exhortation  to  Gentiles 
and  applied  it  to  Jews.  Notice  also  that  they  were  to  receive 
the  Holy  Spirit — naturally,  when  they  renounced  the  unclean 
spirits  (demon-gods)  they  had  been  serving.  There  is  here, 
then,  no  real  violation  of  the  rule.  In  viii,  22,  Simon  is 
urged  to  "  repent  of  this  thy  wickedness  ";  but  this  addendum 
to  the  earlier  story  cannot  be  received  as  historic,  as  already 
shown  in  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus.  It  is  the  beginning  of 
that  misrepresentation  of  Simon  which  extends  throughout 
the  Fathers,  and  particularly  the  Clementines. 

In  xvii,  30,  Paul  declares :  ''  The  times  of  ignorance 
therefore  God  overlooked  ;  but  now  he  commandeth  men 
that  they  should  all  everywhere  repent."  The  ignorance  was 
ignorance  concerning  God,  true  religion,  monotheism,  as  is 
plain  from  verse  29  :  "  We  ought  not  to  think  the  Godhead  is 
like  unto  gold,"  etc.;  hence  the  repentance  is  certainly  a 
turning  away  from  idolatry.  In  Acts  xxvi,  20,  we  find  ''that 
they  should  repent  and  turn  to  God,  doing  works  worthy  of 
repentance."  This  mandate  can  hardly  mean  aught  else  than 
to  forsake  idolatry  and  then  worship  God  properly.  We  need 
not  be  surprised  that  the  writer  makes  this  call  go  forth  to  the 
Jews  also,  since  we  have  repeatedly  shown  that  the  early 
Christians  insisted  that  the  Jews  themselves  were  not  true 
worshippers  of  God  ;  indeed,  the  whole  speech  of  Stephen  is 
but  an  elaboration  and  historical  illustration  of  this  position, 
as  comes  clearly  to  light  in  vii,  51,  52,  53.  Only  from  this 
standpoint  is  the  speech  intelligible. 

In  Luke  the  word  "  repent"  occurs  ten  times.  In  x,  13, 
and  xi,  32,  the  reference  is  clearly  to  the  abandonment  of 


284    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

idolatry  ;  also  it  may  well  be  the  same  in  xiii,  3,  5,  and  also 
in  XV,  7,  10.  The  sinner  here  is  opposed  to  the  just.  This 
latter  is  none  other  than  the  Old  Testament  Saddiq,  he  who 
fulfils  the  law,  who  worships  God  aright — "  for  the  most  part 
with  reference  to  the  divine  law  given  to  the  Israelites  ;  hence 
of  the  faithful  pious  Israelites  in  opposition  to  the  backsliders  " 
(Buhl) — transgressors,  the  wicked,  etc.,  who,  though  not 
heathen,  deported  themselves  as  heathen  in  their  irreligion. 
There  is  no  reference  to  the  inner  moral  life.  In  xvi,  30,  in 
the  Lazarus  parable,  it  is  again  a  question  of  religion,  of 
accepting  the  Kingdom,  the  Jesus-cult ;  no  question  of  ethics 
is  involved.  The  remaining  passage — xvii,  3,  4 — is  note- 
worthy. At  first  sight  it  seems  merely  a  question  of  private 
neighbourly  relations.  But  careful  consideration  shows  this 
to  be  impossible.  The  preceding  verses,  i,  2,  show  that  the 
matter  in  hand  is  the  stumblings  of  the  "little  ones" — i.e., 
the  Gentile  converts.  Such  stumblings  were,  of  course,  very 
frequent,  and  the  verses  teach  patience  therewith.  It  was 
very  hard  for  such  a  convert  to  give  up  at  once  all  his  pagan 
ways ;  often  he  would  stumble  and  sin,  fall  back  into 
heathenry ;  but  as  often,  if  he  repented,  he  was  to  be 
forgiven  and  restored.  The  repentance  is  religious  ;  it  is  the 
same  return  to  true  worship  from  false.  And  who  is  to 
forgive?  Who  is  the  "thou"?  The  individual  Christian? 
Certainly  not.  It  is  the  Christian  community,  the  Christian 
consciousness.  Wellhausen  sees  here,  indeed,  only  the 
individual  Christian,  thus  reducing  the  passage  to  unreason  ; 
but  he  recognises  that  in  the  parallel  in  Matthew  (xviii, 
6/,  15,  21/)  there  is  distinct  reference  to  the  congregation 
(Gemetnde). 

The  sycamine  tree  is  hard  to  understand.  The  following 
suggestion  is  hazarded  :  In  presence  of  the  immense  fact  of 
polytheism  and  the  weakness  of  human  nature,  involving  the 
necessity  of  infinite  patience  and  forbearance,  the  task  of 
converting  the  world,  of  really  establishing  true  worship, 
seemed  almost  hopeless.  The  faith  even  of  the  Apostles 
might  waver.  Nevertheless,  the  task  would  yet  be  accom- 
plished. The  sycamine  tree  of  idolatry  would  yet  be  removed 
from  earth,  and  cast  into  the  sea  along  with  the  legion  of 
demon-gods.     It  is  not  strange  that  the  system  of  polytheism 


REPENTANCE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT         285 

should  be  thus  symbolised,  since  the  Kingdom  of  God  has 
elsewhere  the  mustard  seed  and  plant  for  its  emblem.^ 

But  why  a  mulberry-tree  rather  than  some  other?  The 
question  is  difficult,  at  present  perhaps  impossible,  to  answer. 
Unless  we  take  this  tree  as  a  vague  general  symbol  of  firm 
wide-rootedness,  like  the  live-oak  of  the  Gulf  Coast,  we  must 
have  recourse  to  philology.  The  Syriac  form  is  Thuthay 
and  the  Mishnic  name  for  mulberry  is  Tuth.  One  might 
think  of  the  like-sounding  but  unlike-spelled  Taut  (Phoe- 
nician principle  of  the  universe)  and  of  the  related  Egyptian 
Thoth ;  possibly  there  might  be  a  reference  to  the  whole 
scheme  of  things  to  be  revolutionised  by  the  new  faith. 
Also  we  find  in  Levy's  Worterbuch,  II,  534)  a  queer  citation 
under  Tothavah  (sojourner) :  ''  Woe,  woe,  Tothavah  expels  the 
house-lord — i.e.,  the  idol  is  worshipped  instead  of  God." 
The  word  might  then  conceal  an  allusion  to  the  system  of 
idolatry  which  the  new  faith,  small  now  as  a  mustard  seed, 
would  yet  uproot  and  destroy.  The  Evangelists  were  by  no 
means  incapable  of  such  far-sought  allusions  ;  but  nothing 
more  is  suggested  here  than  that  some  such,  if  far  better, 
explanation  will  sooner  or  later  make  the  matter  clear. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Luke  makes  mention  (xix,  4) 
of  another  related  tree,  the  sycomore,  the  Hebrew  shiqmah, 
Aramaean  (pi.)  shiqmin.  Hence  the  Greek  avKafjuvoq  (syca- 
mine) seems  to  have  come.  The  botanists  assure  us  that  the 
two  trees  are  quite  distinct,  and  the  Syriac  terms  are  not 
identical  ;  still,  it  seems  not  altogether  certain  that  the  Evan- 
gelist thought  of  the  difference.  In  any  case,  it  appears 
impossible  not  to  recognise  in  Zacchseus — Zakkai  =  pure, 
innocent  (J ah  ?) — a  symbol  of  the  Jewish  element  that  accepted 
the  Jesus-cult.^  Even  Keim  {J.  v.  JV.y  HI,  47-50)  recognises 
**  the  easy  explicability  of  the  later  origin  of  the  whole  story, 
which  Luke  evidently  took  from  his  Ebionite  Gospel." 
Whether  now  the  sycomore  be  only  an  enlivening  detail  is 

^  Z>,  agreeing-  with  Syriac  (Curetonian  ;  see  Burkitt's  version),  inserts  also 
the  reference  to  mountain-moving  (as  in  Matt,  xvii,  20).  Can  it  be  that  the 
mountain  symbolises  Mosaism  (from  Sinai),  and  the  mulberry-tree  polytheism, 
both  to  be  removed  by  the  new  faith  ? 

^  The  case  is  not  essentially  altered  if  Cheyne  be  right,  and  Zakkai  = 
Zacharjah  (=Jah  remembers)  ;  nay,  even  if  the  primitive  Zikhri  be  a  tribal 
name,  for  the  question  is  about  the  popular  understanding  of  the  name,  and 
not  about  a  scientific  etymology. 


286    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

not  easy,  nor  of  much  moment,  to  determine  ;  but  it  might 
not  seem  too  far-fetched  to  understand  by  this  tree  also  the 
same  pagan  system,  through  which  Zacchasus  had  indeed 
elevated  himself,  out  from  which,  however,  he  comes  by 
accepting  the  Jesus-cult  (receiving  the  Jesus  into  his  house). 

Returning  from  this  long  digression,  we  observe  that  in 
six  out  of  the  seven  uses  of  "  repent"  in  Matthew  and  Mark 
the  sense  is  that  of  turning  from  idols  unto  God  ;  in  the 
seventh  only,  the  words  of  the  Jesus  are  also  ascribed  to  John. 
In  view,  then,  of  all  the  foregoing,  we  seem  fully  justified  in 
questioning  the  propriety  of  this  ascription.  John  seems, 
indeed,  to  have  been  an  ascetic,  and  to  have  introduced  a 
baptism  symbolic  of  thorough  purity  ;  he  may  undoubtedly 
have  called  for  a  more  rigorous  religious  and  even  moral 
life,  to  fit  the  people  for  the  coming  of  the  One,  since  it  was 
a  common  idea  that  the  Kingdom  was  delayed  by  the  imperfect 
service  of  Israel.  But  it  was  still  not  the  moral,  but  the 
religious,  faultiness  of  Israel  that  postponed  the  advent.  It 
was  the '*  general  view  that  Messiah  cannot  come  until  the 
people  repent  and  perfectly  fulfil  the  law.  ^  If  all  Israel 
would  together  repent  for  a  whole  day,  the  redemption  by 
Messiah  would  ensue.'  If  Israel  would  only  keep  two 
Sabbaths  properly,  we  should  be  immediately  redeemed  " 
(Schiirer,  G,  d.  j\  V.y  II,  ii,  §  29).  Plainly,  the  sole  question 
was  one  of  perfect  obedience,  of  religious  service.  One 
should  here  recall  the  words  of  Weber  {/udtscke  Theologie, 
243) :  *'  From  this  point  of  view  we  perceive  that  sins  were' 
not  regarded  primarily,  but  only  secondarily,  as  ethical 
actions."  Even  if  the  Baptist,  reviving  the  methods  of  the 
old  prophets,  had  cried  out  "  Repent,"  he  would  have  meant 
it  in  the  old  prophetic  sense  of  "  Turn  ye  "  unto  God  and  his 
pure  service,  away  from  the  corruptions  introduced  by  contact 
with  paganism. 

A  few  words  seem  necessary  concerning  the  noun  "  re- 
pentance." A  glance  at  any  and  all  of  the  eight  uses  of  the 
word  in  the  Gospels  (Matthew  iii,  8,  1 1  ;  Mark  i,  4 ;  Luke  iii, 
3,  8  ;  V,  32  ;  XV,  7  ;  xxiv,  47)  shows  that  they  are  all  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  meaning — conversion  to  true  worship  from 
false,  to  monotheism  from  polytheism.  In  Acts  xi,  18,  xx,  21, 
the  sense  here  championed  is  strongly  recommended  as  the 


REPENTANCE  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT         287 

only  sense  satisfactory ;  the  use  in  xxvi,  20,  consists 
thoroughly  therewith  ;  in  xiii,  24,  xix,  4,  the  reference  is  to 
John's  baptism,  of  which  enough  has  been  said  ;  in  v,  31,  the 
author  speaks  of  God's  giving  "  repentance  to  Israel  and 
remission  of  sins,"  where  the  term  seems  to  be  used  in  the 
sense  it  bears  in  the  old  prophetic  exhortations  to  Israel.  In 
Romans  ii,  4 ;  2  Timothy  ii,  25  ;  2  Peter  iii,  9,  the  sense 
here  advocated  is  demanded.  In  2  Cor.  vii,  9  and  10,  ''Ye 
sorrowed  unto  repentance,"  and  "Sorrow,  according  to  God,^ 
worketh  repentance  unto  salvation."  We  know  little  or 
nothing  of  this  incident ;  but  it  seems  hard  to  believe  that  it 
did  not  involve  some  religious  error  on  the  part  of  the  Church. 
We  note,  further,  that  their  repentance  was  caused  by  their 
sorrow,  and  was  by  no  means  the  sorrow  itself,  which  seems 
to  be  marked  by  the  phrase  "  according  to  God  "  as  having 
distinct  reference  to  religion.  The  natural  conjecture  would 
appear  to  be  that  part  of  the  congregation  had  fallen  back 
into  some  heathenish  practices,  for  which  they  heartily 
grieved,  from  which  they  turned  again  to  God. 

In  Heb.  vi,  i,  we  meet  with  the  marvellous  exhortation  : 
"Wherefore  having  put  aside  the  word  of  the  beginning  of 
the  Christ,  let  us  be  borne  on  to  the  completion,  not  laying 
down  again  foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works  and 
of  faith  toward  God."  We  are  not  concerned  to  unravel  this 
enigma,  but  only  to  find  out  the  sense  of  repentance.  We 
notice  that  it  stands  in  immediate  connection  with  "faith 
toward  God  "  (Iwl  Oeov).  The  instant  suggestion  is  that  the 
"  dead  works  "  are  either  heathen  or  semi-heathen  forms  of 
worship,  such  as  Christians  conceived  even  the  Jewish  rites 
and  ceremonies,  festivals,  new  moons,  and  the  like,  to  be. 
Certain  it  is  that  there  is  no  suggestion  of  anything  ethical. 
In  the  sixth  verse  it  is  declared  impossible  to  renew  certain 
apostates^  "unto  repentance."  Here  there  is  no  doubt 
whatever.  Clearly  the  apostasy  is  from  the  true  faith,  from 
God,  and  the  repentance  is  the  return  thereto.  Unequivocal 
also  is  the  next  passage  (xii,  17),  where  it  is  declared  of 
Esau  that  "he  found  no  place  of  repentance,  though  he 
sought  it  (the   blessing)  diligently  with   tears."     Evidently 

*  Kara  dedv.  ^  irapaireadvTai. 


288    THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  CALL  TO  REPENTANCE 

what  he  sought  was  restoration  to  divine  favour,  to  the 
prerogatives  of  the  chosen  servant  and  worshipper  of 
Jehovah,  which  he  had  surrendered  to  his  younger  brother. 
Whatever  moral  quality  could  possibly  go  with  Esau's  act 
belonged  to  his  diligent  search  (for  the  blessing)  with  tears, 
which,  however,  was  entirely  unavailing.  That  it  is  relapse 
to  some  form  of  idolatry  or  false  worship  that  the  author  has 
in  mind  is  also  made  clear  in  verses  15,  16,  by  the  terms 
"defiled,"  "polluted,"  "fornicator,"  all  of  which  refer  to 
heathenism,  and  by  the  quotation  concerning  the  "  root  of 
bitterness,"  which  refers  to  an  idolatrous  person  corrupting 
the  faithful  by  his  presence  and  example,  as  is  plain  from 
Deut.  xxix,  16-18,  to  which  the  writer  plainly  alludes. 

CONCLUSION 

This  analysis  has  been  tedious,  but  it  was  necessary,  and 
apparently  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  prevailing  and  almost 
exclusive  reference  of  repent  and  repentance  is  to  conversion 
from  some  form  of  imperfect  or  idolatrous  worship  to  the 
pure  worship  of  the  one  "  God  in  person  of  Christ."  It 
seems  probable  that  the  primitive  reference  of  sin,  especially 
in  the  "putting  or  sending  away  of  sins,"  was  in  New 
Testament  usage  always  to  the  renunciation  of  idolatry,  of 
errors  of  faith  or  practice.  These  were  indeed  conceived  to 
draw  along  in  their  train  all  forms  of  vice,  as  is  very  clearly 
stated  in  Rom.  i,  18-32,  where  the  whole  acrostic  of  iniquities 
is  deduced  from  polytheism,  from  refusal  to  have  God  in 
knowledge  (i,  28).  This  passage  is  highly  instructive,  and 
states  the  New  Testament  doctrine  with  more  distinctness 
and  emphasis  than  does  any  other.  It  seems  impossible, 
after  pondering  it  carefully,  to  question  in  any  important 
feature  the  outcome  of  the  foregoing  investigation. 

Such  unexpected  results  derive  great  importance  from  the 
fact  that  they  confirm  in  a  striking  and  decisive  manner  the 
conclusion  already  reached  (p.  46^)  concerning  the  essence 
and  sovereign  virtue  of  the  proto-Christian  proclamation.  If, 
as  maintained,  the  primitive  propaganda  was  directed 
primarily  and  consciously  against  the  prevailing  idolatry,  if 
it  was  an  organised  revolt  against  polytheism,  then,  indeed, 


CONCLUSION  289 

its  battle-cry  must  have  been,  or  at  least  must  have  signified, 
"Change  your  minds,"  "Turn  ye  from  gods  to  God";  then, 
indeed,  "  repentance  from  dead  works  and  faith  unto  God  " 
must  have  been  "the  word  of  the  beginning  of  the  Christ," 
the  very  basis  of  the  new  religion  universal.  The  consequent 
here  is  indeed  true,  but  does  not  in  this  reasoning  formally 
imply  the  antecedent.  On  the  other  hand,  if  such  actually 
was  the  battle-cry  of  the  missionaries,  and  if  such  was  its 
sense,  if  their  call  to  repentance  really  meant  "  Abandon 
your  idols  and  worship  only  the  one  living  God  "  (the  Jesus, 
who  would  thus  save  them  from  their  sznsj  their  idolatries), 
then,  indeed,  the  vital  content  of  their  preaching  could  have 
been  nothing  else  than  the  great  truth  of  monotheism,  and 
the  aim  of  their  crusade  could  have  been  naught  but  the 
redemption  of  mankind  from  "the  polytheistic  error,"  from 
"the  bitter  bondage  of  the  tyrannising  demons."  Now, 
however,  by  entirely  unrelated  processes  from  entirely 
unrelated  premisses  we  have  shown  that  here  the  antecedent 
is  actually  true  ;  and  from  it  the  consequent  follows  of 
necessity.  In  other  words,  the  necessary  consequent  of  an 
antecedent  already  established  (p.  ^6ff)  has  itself  been  shown 
wholly  independently  to  be  an  historic-literary  fact ;  and  this 
fact  has  been  shown  to  carry  with  it  the  former  antecedent 
as  its  own  necessary  consequence.  It  would  be  hard  to 
supply,  and  unjust  to  require,  a  more  stringent  demonstration. 
It  should  not  pass  unnoticed,  since  it  supplements  and 
confirms  the  foregoing,  that  the  Hebrew  word  for  repent,  in 
the  familiar  and  now  almost  exclusive  sense  of  regret  or  rue, 
is  the  onomatopoetic  ndham,  to  sigh,  to  groan.  In  the  Old 
Testament  it  is  used  especially  with  Jehovah,  now  affirma- 
tively, now  negatively.  Its  New  Testament  equivalent,  and 
indeed  translation,  is  metamelomai,  used  five  times  (Matthew 
xxi,  30,  32  ;  xxvii,  3  ;  2  Cor.  vii,  8  ;  Heb.  vii,  21),  quite  dis- 
tinct from  metdnoia. 


PART  VI. 

''A  CITY  CALLED  NAZARET" 


PRELIMINARY 

Since  the  appearance  of  the  memoir  on  the  Meaning  of  the 
Epithet  Nazorean,  the  matter  has  been  treated  by  many 
critics  from  many  points  of  view.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of 
this  work  to  review  these  treatments,  though  one  or  two 
observations  thereon  may  be  allowed. 

It  seems  strange  that  Kampmeier  should  feel  it  necessary 
to  call  my  attention  to  the  elegy  of  Kalir  (a.d.  900?),  since 
my  language  as  quoted,  "  for  nearly  a  thousand  years  after 
Christ,"  shows  clearly  enough  that  the  elegy  was  present  in 
my  mind  at  the  time  of  writing — else  why  the  round  number, 
"  nearly  one  thousand "  ?  Samuel  Klein  {Beitrdge  zur 
Geographie  und  Geschichte  Galildas — 1909)  seeks  to  date 
the  original  of  the  catalogue  between  the  years  135  and  300 
of  our  era,  with  what  success  it  is  needless  to  discuss.  That 
some  **  city  called  Nazaret "  may  have  been  known  in  Galilee 
some  centuries  after  a.d.  i  would  be  hardly  worth  con- 
troverting. 

In  the  Protestantische  Monatshefte  (xiv,  6,  208-213) 
Schwen  argues  at  length  over  the  ''  Epiphaniusstelle," 
declaring  "the  theological  critics  have  here  capitulated  in 
part.''  His  main  thesis  is  that  '*  Nazoree  and  Nazaree  are 
in  Epiphanius  clearly  distinguished."  Few  are  likely  to 
find  his  proofs  satisfactory.  The  mere  fact  that  the  spelling 
varies  from  MS.  to  MS.  at  nearly  every  appearance  of  the 
word,  that  Markx,  47,  presents  seven,  and  Luke  xxiv,  19,  even 
eight  forms,  among  them  va^Wjoatoc,  va?Ojoatoc,  vaZ^a^aioq^  com- 
bined with  the  fact  that  the  Semitic  sibilant  Sadhe  (in 
Nasarja,  Nosri,  Nasrat)  is  commonly  rendered  by  <r  and  not 
by  ?,  shows  clearly  both  that  the  forms  are  all  equivalent, 

291 


292  "  A  CITY  CALLED  NAZARET  " 

and  that  vafrapaiog  is  the  more  primitive  and  more  nearly- 
correct.  Even,  then,  if  we  should  (though  we  do  not)  admit 
Sch wen's  *'  Hauptaufstellung,"  nothing  would  be  gained  for 
the  cause  he  would  rescue.  It  would  only  be  Epiphanius 
who  sought  to  make  a  distinction  where  there  was  no 
difference.  It  was  natural  that  he  should  strive  hard  to  do 
so  ;  but  it  would  be  very  unwise  for  us  to  mistake  his  efforts 
for  success.  In  spite  of  all  the  adverse  learning  that  has 
been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  central  positions  of  the 
original  article — that  the  sect  of  the  Nazarees  was  pre- 
Christian,  and  that  their  name  is  derived  not  from  a  city 
called  Nazareth,  but  from  the  Semitic  stem  N-S-R  (to 
guard) — these  positions  remain  as  yet  unshaken,  and  indeed 
not  seriously  assailed.' 

NEW  TESTAMENT  USE  OF  -CALLED" 

Reserving,  then,  the  right  to  enter  into  further  details  of 
criticism,  if  at  any  time  it  should  seem  worth  while,  we  now 
strike  into  an  entirely  different  path  of  research,  and  without 
any  foreboding  at  the  start  as  to  whither  it  will  lead  us.  The 
observation  may  possibly  be  not  without  importance  that 
Matthew  does  not  say  (ii,  23)  Nazareth  or  a  city  Nazaret, 
but  a  "city  called  Nazaret."^    The  phrase  sounds  innocent 

^  Such,  indeed,  is  the  recent  judgment  of  Bousset  {Theol.  Rundschau^ 
October,  1911)  :  "The  theological  attempts  to  explain  this  remarkable  state  of 
case  [in  Epiph.]  must  thus  far  be  accounted  failures  " — he  mentions  by  name 
Wernle,  Schwen,  Schmiedel,  Schmidtke.  At  the  proper  time  and  place  it  may 
not  be  hard  to  show  that  his  own  attempt  is  scarcely  more  successful,  labour- 
ing under  the  grave  burden  of  a  superfetation  of  hypotheses.  It  is  still  more 
interesting  to  note  further  that  in  the  same  leading  article  Bousset  seems  to 
surrender  Nazareth  as  the  source  of  the  names  Nazaree,  Nazoree,  and, 
indeed,  the  "city"  itself  as  a  geographic  reality  (p.  381).  One  admires  the 
candour  of  the  critic,  but  wonders,  after  this  "capitulation  in  part,"  what 
there  remains  for  the  historicist  to  defend  ?  If  Nazaree  be  not  from  Nazareth, 
if  this  latter  be  imaginary,  then  can  anyone  doubt  that  Nazaree  is  a  religious 
designation,  that  it  is  in  some  wise,  no  matter  how,  related  to  the  Hebrew 
stem  N-S-R  (to  guard),  and  that  Nazareth  itself  is  most  probably  derived  there- 
from? *  These  momentous  and  immediate  consequences  have  been  clearly 
foreseen  by  the  Liberals  in  general,  hence  the  exceeding  fierceness  with  which 
they  have  defended  the  citadel  that  Bousset  has  now  surrendered.  They  have 
rightly  felt  that  the  fall  of  Nazareth  is  the  fall  of  historicism  itself.  It  remains 
to  add  that  Winckler  entertains  no  doubt  that  "  From  the  concept  ne^er  is 
named  the  religion  of  those  that  believe  on  the  *  Saviour ' — Nazarene  Christians 
and  Nosairier" — precisely  as  I  have  contended.  See  my  note  in  Das  freie 
Woriy  July,  191 1,  pp.  266-8. 
'  irdXtP  Xeyofi^vTjv  Nafa/j^. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  USE  OF  "CALLED"  293 

enough  and  accords  perfectly  with  Greek  usage,  and  yet  may 
well  give  us  pause.  This  participle  *'  called " ""  is  applied 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  four  times  to  cities  :  "A  city 
called  Nain  "  (Luke  vii,  11),  **A  city  called  Bethsaida"  (Luke 
ix,  10),  *'A  city  of  Samaria  called  Sychar  "  (John  iv,  5),  "  Into 
Ephraim  called  city  "  (John  xi,  54).  The  point  is  that  all  these 
names  are  suspicious  or  peculiar.  Of  Nain  the  best  criticism 
feels  very  uncertain.  The  Nain  of  Josephus(^.  y.,  iv,  9,  4/) 
does  not  suit,  being  near  Edom  ;  whereas  Luke's  Nain 
should  be  near  Shunem.  Since  the  Lucan  story  is  clearly  a 
symbolism  modelled  on  i  Kings  xvii,  8-24,  the  suggestion 
lies  very  nigh  that  Nain  is  for  Naim,  mentioned  in  the 
Midrash  (Ber.  rabda,  98,  on  Gen.  xlix,  15),  and  this  a  mere 
disguise  (of  the  Evangelist's)  for  Shunem.  So  Cheyne, 
£,  B.y  3263.  Nestle  {Pkti.  Sac,  20)  most  ingeniously 
suggests  that  "  Nain  "  transliterated  back  into  Q'Tl^  might 
mean  "the  awakened,"  in  which  case  it  would  clearly  be 
merely  a  symbolic  name  made  to  fit  the  miracle. 

Coming  now  to  Bethsaida,  we  find  that  this  was  the  old 
name  for  a  city  rebuilt,  enlarged,  and  renamed  Julias  ;  so 
that  Bethsaida  was  not  the  real  name  in  use  at  the  time  of  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel. 

Concerning  the  city  called  ''  Sychar "  the  wisest  know 
nothing,  and  into  the  circle  of  eternal  strife  about  it  we  need 
not  enter.  Critics  incline  to  identify  it  with  Sychem,  thinking 
the  Evangelist  may  have  arbitrarily  changed  the  name  for 
some  hidden  reason  ;  he  may,  so  to  speak,  have  given  the 
place  this  name.  Enough  that  Sychar  is  elsewhere  unknown, 
and  takes  its  place  along  with  Ephraim,  -^non,  Salim,  and 
the  rest,  as  a  "somewhat  improbable  place-name"  (Cheyne, 
E,  B,,  4829)  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  case  of  Ephraim  is  not  quite  parallel ;  the  form  of 
words  is  not  quite  the  same,  as  the  reader  has  observed. 
However,  in  view  of  the  general  character  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  it  seems  highly  probable  even  to  Keim  (following  in 
the  wake  of  Spath)  that  the  name  is  here  symbolic,  not  meant 
really  to  designate  any  special  city  :  "  In  fact,  it  is  a  near- 
lying  idea  to  regard  it  as  representative  of  the  rejected,  but 

^  Xeyofiev. — ;  in  Luke,  KoXovfiev — . 


294  "A  CITY  CALLED  NAZARET" 

finally  redeemed  (Hos.  i,  ii),  land  of  the  Ten  Tribes  and  the 
Samaritans.  Cf.  i,  590:  Messias  filius  Ephraim  (iii,  8n)." 
It  seems,  then,  that  in  all  these  cases  the  word  "  said " 
(Xeyo^tvr?)  most  probably  denotes  an  epithet  applied,  it  may 
be,  by  the  writer  himself;  so  that  it  might  without  violence 
be  rendered  "so-called,"  or  even  '*  which  we  may  call." 

This  probability  seems  greatly  heightened  when  we 
consider  other  similar  uses  in  the  New  Testament.  Of 
these  there  are  about  twenty-seven,  such  as :  "  Jesus  the 
so-called  Christ"  (Matthew  i,  16;  xxvii,  17,  22);  "Simon  the 
so-called  Peter  "  (Matthew  iv,  18  ;  x,  2) ;  "  Matthew  so-called  " 
(Matthew  ix,  9),  supposed  to  be  named  Levi  (Luke  v,  27) ; 
"the  so-called  Judas  Iscariot"  (Matthew  xxvi,  14) ;  "prisoner 
famous  called  Barabbas"  (Matthew  xxvii,  16)  ;  "place  called 
Golgotha,  which  is  Skull's  Place  so-called  "  (Matthew  xxvii, 
33);  "the  so-called  Barabbas"  (Mark  xv,  7)  ;  "the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread  the  so-called  passover "  (Luke  xxii,  i)  ; 
"the  so-called  Judas"  (Luke  xxii,  47) ;  "  Messias  comes,  the 
so-called  Christ"  (John  iv,  25);  "a  pool  the  so-called  [in 
Hebrew]  Bethzatha,"  or  "the  surnamed,"  ETriXeyoiuevr}  (John 
V,  2)  ;  "  the  man  the  so-called  Jesus  "  (John  ix,  11);  "  Thomas 
the  so-called  Didymus  "  (John  xi,  16  ;  xx,  24  ;  xxi,  2)  ;  "  at  a 
place  called  Lithostroton,  but  in  Hebrew  Gabbatha"  (John 
xix,  13);  "the  so-called  Skull's  Place,  which  is  called  in 
Hebrew  Golgotha"  (John  xix,  17);  "A  gate  of  the  temple, 
the  so-called  Beautiful  "  (Acts  iii,  2) ;  "  Synagogue  so-called 
of  the  Libertines,"  or  "of  the  so-called  Libertines"  (Acts 
vi,  9) ;  "  for  even  if  there  are  so-called  gods  "  (i  Cor.  viii,  5) ; 
"Those  called  uncircumcision  by  the  so-called  circumcision  " 
(Eph.  ii,  11) ;  "  Exalting  himself  against  every  so-called  god 
or  object  worshipped  "  (2  Thess.  ii,  4) ;  "  tent  the  so-called 
Holy  of  Holies"  (Heb.  ix,  3).  Add  "the  high-priest  the 
so-called  Caiaphas "  (Matthew  xxvi,  3)  and  "  place  called 
Gethsemane "  (Matthew  xxvi,  36),  where  the  parallel  in 
Mark  xiv,  32,  is  peculiar — "  place  of  which  the  name  is 
Gethsemane," — and  "  Jesus,  the  so-called  Justus  "  (Col.  iv,  1 1). 
There  remain  only  five  or  six  cases  in  which  a  similar  phrase 
is  used,  as  "which  is  called  ";  but  these  need  not  detain  us. 

We  note  that  in  all  these  cases  the  word  "called  "  is  used 
to  introduce  a  name  either  additional  or  in  some  way  peculiar, 


NEW  TESTAMENT  USE  OF  "CALLED"  295 

so  that  it  might  be  rendered  "surnamed."  The  enumeration 
is  exhaustive  for  New  Testament  usage^ ;  and  if  there  be  any- 
such  thing  as  reasoning  from  complete  induction,  we  must 
admit  that  Matthew,  in  writing  ''city  called  Nazaret,"  seems 
to  betray  a  consciousness  that  he  is  using  this  name  epitheti- 
cally,  or  at  least  in  some  way  peculiarly.  He  seems  to  be 
saying,  '*  a  city  that  for  the  purposes  of  my  representation 
may  be  called  Nazaret."  Why?  In  order  to  explain  the 
term  Nazorasus  ! 

Some  of  these  cases  will  well  repay  further  examination. 
As  to  the  place  called  Gethsemane — i.e.y  *' Wine-press  of 
Olives  " — no  one  knows  anything  whatever  about  it,  and  its 
topographic  reality  appears  highly  problematic.  The  con- 
jecture seems  to  lie  close  at  hand  that  the  name  is  purely 
symbolical,  suggested  by  the  famous  passage  in  Isaiah : 
"Thy  garments  like  him  that  treadeth  in  the  wine-fat" 
{Gath).  This  latter  term  means  wine-press,  and  apparently 
never  anything  but  wine-press.^  The  combination  Gath- 
shemani  (wine-press  of  oil  or  olives)  is  singular,  and  seems 
very  unlikely  as  the  name  of  a  place.  But  why  may  it  not 
mean  simply  ''wine-press  of  Olivet"?  As  Wellhausen  well 
remarks,  the  word  is  not  Aramaic,  but  Hebrew.  Such  a 
name  must  have  descended  through  centuries,  if  it  was  a 
name  at  all.  This  it  would  hardly  have  done  had  it  not 
designated  some  place  of  importance  ;  and  in  that  case  we 
should  probably  have  heard  of  it.  It  is  very  unlikely,  then, 
that  there  was  any  place  named  Winepress  of  Olives,  The 
symbolism  seems  perfectly  obvious.  The  wine-press  is  that 
of  Isaiah  (Ixiii,  2)— the  wine-press  of  divine  suffering.  This 
explanation  seems  so  perfectly  satisfying  in  every  way  that  it 
appears  gratuitous  to  look  further.  That  the  Evangelist  was 
thinking  of  Isaiah  seems  clear  from  his  separating  the  Jesus 
at  this  point  from  his  disciples  :  "  I  have  trodden  the  wine- 
trough  alone^  and  of  the  peoples  there  was  no  man  with  we"; 

*  It  has  not  seemed  necessary  to  consider  in  general  the  kindred  use  or 
KoXovfiev — . 

^  To  be  sure,  a  wine-press  might  be  used  for  various  purposes  (as  in 
Judges  vi,  11) ;  and  the  word  gath  may  sometime  have  been  used  inaccurately 
for  the  word  bad{d)^  which  regularly  means  olive-press,  as  in  Pea.  vii,  i, 
where  gath  "certainly  means  an  olive-press."  Elsewhere,  however,  the 
difference  between  the  two  words,  as  between  the  two  things,  seems  to  be 
observed  consistently. 


296  "A  CITY  CALLED  NAZARET" 

and  (the  later?)  Luke  adds  :  ''  There  appeared  to  him  an  angel 
from  heaven,  strengthening  him  " — not  human,  but  divine, 
help  was  needed.  Herewith  is  explained  also  the  "  impremo- 
nition  "  of  the  disciples,  which  Wellhausen  finds  so  puzzling 
and  inconsistent  (£v.  Matth.^  p.  139).  The  whole  scene  is 
designed  to  pathetise  the  idea  of  a  suffering  God,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  fulfil  the  words  of  the  prophet  in  a  far  higher 
than  the  prophet's  sense.  There  was  need  thus  to  import 
pathos,  for  the  notion  of  suffering  was  naturally  so  foreign  to 
the  idea  of  God,  though  native  to  the  idea  of  man,  that  the 
representation  ran  the  risk  of  appearing  unreal,  a  transparent 
make-believe.  Hence  the  increasing  care  with  which  each 
succeeding  evangelist  elaborates  the  details  of  the  wondrous 
picture — with  sublime  success. 

Of  course,  some  one  will  say  that  the  Isaian  divine 
warrior  is  triumphing  over  his  enemies,  that  his  garments 
are  red  with  their  blood ;  whereas  in  the  Gospels  it  is 
the  Jesus  that  is  suffering,  and  his  garments  are  stained 
with  his  own  blood  (Luke  xxii,  44).  Very  true,  indeed. 
The  idea  of  the  wine-press  has  been  taken  over,  but 
not  merely  taken  over;  it  has  been  Christianised  in 
transit.  Vengeance  has  been  turned  into  self-sacrifice. 
There  is  nothing  strange  in  this.  It  is  the  habit  of  the  New 
Testament  writer  to  seize  upon  an  idea  or  phrase  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  transform  it  to  suit  his  own  purpose.  In 
this  case  the  transformation  is  precisely  what  we  might 
expect.  Can  any  one  fail  to  perceive  the  delicate  and  beautiful 
suggestion  in  the  combination,  **  wine-press  of  olives"?  In 
Isaiah  it  was  the  wine  of  wrath  and  vengeance  that  gushed 
out  from  under  the  press  ;  not  so  in  the  Gospels.  There  it  is 
still  the  wine-press  (Gath)  of  the  prophet ;  but  it  is  the  oil  of 
healing  and  salvation  that  flows  gently  forth  for  all  the 
nations. 

In  regard  to  the  "  pool  the  so-called  (in  Hebrew)  Beth- 
zatha  "  (John  v,  2),  the  case  appears  clear  as  day.  That  the 
whole  story  is  a  transparent  symbolism  seems  too  plain  for 
argument.  Our  modern  editors  have  cut  out  verse  4,  follow- 
ing venerable  manuscripts,  but  forsaking  common  sense. 
For  manifestly  some  such  verse  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
give  semblance  to  the  whole  story,   and  is   indispensably 


NEW  TESTAMENT  USE  OF  "  CALLED  "  297 

implied  in  verse  7.  But  the  early  copyists  of  t^,  B,  C,  D, 
and  others,  as  well  as  many  translators,  seem  to  have  had  no 
relish  for  the  angel  of  verse  4,  and  accordingly  left  it  out, 
though  Tertullian  {De  Bapt,,  $)  declares  the  "intervening 
angel  used  to  disturb  the  pool  Bethsaida,"  which  carries  the 
attestation  of  the  idea  of  the  verse  back  to  the  second  century, 
far  behind  any  Gospel  manuscript. 

That  this  pool  symbolises  (Jewish)  baptism  or  outward 
purification  is  clearly  seen  in  the  Sinaitic  Syriac  palimpsest, 
which  renders  it  in  verse  7  by  (a  word  meaning)  baptism. 
Verse  2  is  lost  from  this  ancient  manuscript,  but  the  Cure- 
tonian  has  place  of  baptism.  The  cripple  of  thirty-eight 
years  is  evidently  Humanity,  that  had  been  waiting  just 
thirty-eight  centuries  for  the  coming  of  the  Jesus-cult  to  heal 
it.  The  symbol  sets  forth  vividly  the  impotence  of  the  ethnic 
Jewish  religion  of  rites,  ceremonies,  purifications,  and  the 
omnipotence  of  the  spiritual  religion,  the  new  doctrine  of  the 
Jesus.  On  the  details  of  interpretation  we  do  not  insist. 
But  either  the  whole  account  must  be  accepted  as  fact,  as 
history,  or  else  it  must  be  interpreted  symbolically.  Now,  if 
any  man  really  interprets  it  as  historic  fact,  we  have  no 
quarrel  with  him,  but  neither  have  we  any  discussion  ;  he  is 
beyond  the  pale  of  our  argument.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we 
understand  it  as  symbolism,  then  there  was  no  such  topo- 
graphic pool  and  no  such  name  therefor ;  the  name  "  Beth- 
esda "  becomes  a  part  of  the  symbolism,  and  the  word 
XtyojUEvov  has  the  sense  we  have  found  to  be  uniform  in  the 
Gospel.  Besides,  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that 
no  such  pool  is  elsewhere  mentioned,  or  is  anywhere  dis- 
coverable in  Jerusalem.  Says  Godet,  who,  naturally,  accepts 
the  story  literally,  rejecting  verse  4  :  "  Commeil  est  impossible 
d'identifier  la  piscine  de  Bethesda  avec  I'une  des  sources 
thermales  dont  nous  venons  de  parler,  elle  doit  avoir  ete 
recouverte  par  les  decombres,  etc."  ! 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  "  place  called  Lithostroton,  but  in 
Hebrew  Gabbatha  "  (John  xix,  13).  However,  we  need  not 
tarry  there  long.  It  is  well  known  that  all  attempts  in  all 
ages,  even  by  the  most  ingenious  and  erudite  and  sympa- 
thetic scholars,  to  locate  this  "  stone-strewn  "  spot  have  failed 
utterly.     Now  at  last  it  has  become  clear  that  they  have  all 


298  "  A  CITY  CALLED  NAZARET  " 

the  while  been  seeking  in  the  wrong  region,  in  Jerusalem, 
whereas  the  "  pavement "  glittered  only  in  the  fancy  of  the 
Evangelist.  It  may  suffice  to  refer  to  the  *'  conclusion  "  of 
Canney  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  3640 :  *'  It  seems  not 
unlikely,  therefore,  that  the  place  Lithostroton-Gabbatha 
existed,  as  a  definite  locality,  only  in  the  mind  of  the  author." 
The  Greek  and  Hebrew  words  were  hardly  mere  conceits. 
The  author  had  some  reason  for  preferring  them  to  others — 
reasons  that  we  may  or  may  not  be  able  to  discover.  That 
he  gave  the  place  any  name  at  all  was  merely  a  part  of  his 
general  scheme  of  vivid  dramatic  representation,  by  means 
of  well-imagined  details. 

Only  a  few  steps  further  on  we  come  to  **  the  so-called 
Skull's  Place,  which  is  called  in  Hebrew  Golgotha "  (John 
xix,  17).  Surely  these  two  *' places"  are  nearly  related. 
Why  should  one  be  taken  and  the  other  left?  The  search 
for  Golgotha  has  been  quite  as  futile  as  for  Gabbatha.  But 
the  surrender  of  the  latter  did  not  seem  to  involve  such 
serious  consequences  ;  hence  it  has  been  more  readily  made. 
However,  the  reasons  are  the  same.  There  is  not  the 
slightest  ground  for  retaining  either  as  a  chorographic 
entity.  Matthew,  in  fact,  hints  distinctly  that  the  name 
"Golgotha"  is  a  creation,  by  translating  it  into  Greek 
(xxvii,  33). 

On  the  other  examples  it  seems  needless  to  dwell.  The 
**  so-called  "  names  seem  to  be  all  secondary  or  surnames  or 
nicknames  given  for  this  reason  or  for  that.  Thus,  "the 
high-priest  the  so-called  Caiaphas  "  was  really  named  Joseph, 
as  we  learn  from  Josephus  (^;z/.,  18,2,  2,'and^w/.,  18,4,3''). 
"  The  so-called  Judas  "  was  merely  Judaeus,  the  Jewish  people. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  epithet  "  so-called "  (Xeyo/xev-) 
prefixed  to  a  name  in  Gospel  usage  uniformly  implies  that 
such  is  not  the  proper  name,  but  is  a  surname  or  nickname, 
or  it  may  be  merely  a  fictive  name  for  a  mere  imagination. 
In  no  case  does  it  appear  to  be  the  real  name  of  a  real  thing. 
Such  at  least  is  the  induction  made  with  all  care  up  to  the 
" city  so-called  Nazaret."  In  every  one  of  thirty-one  cases 
such  is  the  result.     What,  then,  shall  we  say  of  the  thirty- 

*  *Ic6(r?77ros  6  /cat  Kaia0as  SidSoxos  ^v  a^ry. 
"  'I6<rr}Trov  rbv  /cat  Ka'Ca<})av  iiriKoXoOfievov — Joseph  him  also  surnamed  Caiaphas. 


CONCLUSION  299 

second  case,  the  case  of  Nazaret?  We  need  not  invoke  the 
calculus  of  probabilities.^  Common-sense  demands  imperi- 
ously that  the  one  and  only  authenticated  sense  be  given 
to  the  term  here,  unless  some  positive  and  decisive  counter 
reason  can  be  given  for  the  other  sense.  Everyone  knows 
that  no  such  opposing  reason  has  ever  been  either  discovered 
or  invented  ;  on  the  contrary,  very  strong  and  wholly  inde- 
pendent reasons  have  been  assigned  (in  Der  vorchristliche 
Jesus)  for  regarding  the  name  as  invented  to  explain  the 
much  older  appellative  Nazaraeus,  and  not  one  of  these  has 
yet  been  invalidated.^  If,  then,  there  is  any  virtue  whatever 
in  complete  induction,  the  case  seems  closed  against  Nazaret 
as  a  proper  name  of  a  "  city  so-called." 

Let  no  one  cite  the  fact  that  Nazareth  occurs  eleven  times 
without  the  qualifying  ** so-called."  A  hundred  negative 
instances  would  weigh  naught  against  the  one  positive 
instance.  So,  too,  the  high-priest  is  eight  times  simply 
"Caiaphas,"  and  only  once  the  "so-called  Caiaphas."  The 
surname  may  very  well  be  used  without  the  participle,  as  the 
officer  may  appear  without  his  badge  ;  but  the  presence  of 
the  participle  in  a  single  case  defines  the  surname,  as  the 
badge  once  worn  defines  the  officer.  It  is  superfluous,  then, 
to  examine  the  eleven  cases  any  further,  though  such  exami- 
nation would  strongly  corroborate  our  contention. 

CONCLUSION 

Now  at  last  we  are  prepared  to  answer  the  objection 
brought   forward  so   exultantly  by   Weinel   and   Weiss,   to 

'  This  is  indeed  a  special  case  of  a  very  important  general  problem  :  There 
are  n  balls  in  a  bag",  all  known  to  be  either  white  or  black.  There  are  drawn 
out  at  random  w  white  balls  and  b  black  ones,  and  none  is  replaced.  What  is 
the  chance  that  the   next  ball  drawn   out  at  random  will   be  white  ?     The 

answer  is    ^,  ^  .     If,  in  the  special  case  in  hand,  w  equals  31  and  b  equals 

zero,  the  answer  will  be  32/33.  Hence  there  would  be  only  one  chance  in  33 
that  Nazaret  is  used  in  Matt,  ii,  23,  as  the  ordinary  name  ;  there  would  be  32 
chances  in  33  that  it  was  used  as  some  kind  of  a  surname,  nickname,  or 
fictive  name,  as  in  the  other  cases  examined.  The  probability  might,  indeed, 
seem  far  higher  than  this  calculation  would  show  it  to  be  ;  for  it  has  not  been 
considered  that  the  31  cases  out  of  32  indicate  strongly  that  such  is  the 
uniform  usage  of  the  writer  ;  that  there  can  really  be  no  black  balls  at  all. 
But  the  result  given  is  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument.  We  do 
not  grudge  our  opponents  their  three  per  cent,  of  probability. 
*  See  note,  p.  292. 


\] 


300  «  A  CITY  CALLED  NAZARET  " 

mention  no  others,  that  no  one  would  have  written  Matthew 
ii,  23,  ''  He  settled  in  a  city  so-called  Nazareth,"  when  any 
Galilean  could  at  once  have  objected,  "  There  is  no  such 
city."  So,  too,  the  Judsean  might  have  protested  that  there 
was  no  such  place  as  Gabbatha  or  Golgotha  or  Gethsemane, 
and  no  such  pool  as  Bethzatha.  But  Matthew  and  John 
would  have  cared  for  none  of  these  objections,  no  more  than 
any  poet  or  novelist  would  care  for  a  charge  of  nominal 
inaccuracy  brought  against  his  imaginations.  Why  might 
not  imaginary  parents  of  an  imaginary  child  settle  in  an 
imaginary  town?  Neither  would  Matthew  or  Luke  have 
been  moved  greatly  by  the  easy  demonstration  that  there 
was  no  slaughter  of  babes  in  Bethlehem,  and  no  transmi- 
gration of  peoples  at  census-taking  ;  on  the  contrary,  that 
they  were  commanded  to  slay  at  home,  each  at  his  own 
hearth-stone;'  and  still  more  that  there  was  no  "darkness 
over  the  whole  earth  until  the  ninth  hour"  "from  the  sixth 
hour."  This  latter  statement,  in  all  the  Synoptics,  was  the 
directest  possible  slap  in  the  face  of  all  experience,  if  accepted 
literally ;  how,  then,  could  the  Evangelists  have  exposed 
themselves  to  such  a  stunning  rejoinder  as  Weinel  and  Weiss 
would  have  given  them  ?  What  could  they  have  replied  to 
such  keen-witted  critics?  They  would  have  smiled  wearily, 
and  said  :  "  Gentlemen,  alas  !  that  you  do  not  understand. 
The  letter  killeth,  the  spirit  maketh  alive.  We  are  not 
writing  history  ;  we  are  writing  Gospel.  We  are  very  sorry 
you  do  not  see  our  meaning  ;  but  if  our  Gospel  be  hid,  it  is 
hid  to  them  that  are  lost "  (2  Cor.  iv,  3). 

No  !  we  must  never  forget  that  the  Scriptures  were  written 
for  believers,  and  not  for  unbelievers  ;  for  those  within,  and 
not  for  "those  without."  Such  readers,  "discipled  for  the 
Kingdom  of  the  heavens,"  might  be  trusted  to  "  understand 
all  parables."  They  would  not  balk  at  eclipses  at  impossible 
seasons,  whether  they  lasted  three  minutes  or  three  hours  ; 
they  would  not  stumble  over  any  number  of  imaginary  topo- 
graphic and  other  details,  nor  over  patent  anachronisms  and 
absurdities,    nor   over   miraculous   narratives   galore.       For 


^  eiraveVheiv  els  rh  eavrQu  i(f>^aTia — edict  of  Gaius  Vibius   Maxlmus,  on  occa- 
sion of  census-taking  in  Egypt,  a.d.  104. 


CONCLUSION  301 

their  well-informed  sense,  even  over-instructed  to  take  nothing 
literally,  would  in  every  case  pierce  through  the  thin  shell  of 
speech  down  to  the  inner  kernel  of  meaning  ;  the  god  of  this 
world  had  not  blinded  their  thoughts  so  that  the  light  of 
the  Gospel  should  not  shine  through  into  their  hearts.  A 
thousand  such  objections  as  this  of  Weinel  and  Weiss 
might,  indeed,  have  been  urged,  and  actually  have  been 
urged  repeatedly,  by  the  blinded  unbelievers,  who  see  the 
sign  and  mistake  it  for  the  signified  ;  but  they  are  senseless 
and  impossible  for  us  after  He  "  has  shined  in  our  hearts 
unto  illumination  of  the  glorious  Gnosis  of  God." 


PART  VII. 

(I)SCARIOT(H)=SURRENDERER 


FORM  AND  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD 

That   there   is  a  weird  fascination   in   evil   would   seem  to 
be  illustrated  in  the  perennial  interest  that  blooms  around 
the   name   of  Judas  Iscariot.     With   the   ancients    it  is  the 
synonym  of  sin  ;  with  Dante  "  that  soul  up  there  that  suffers 
heavier  sentence"  is  the  eponym  of  the  lowest   circlet   of 
Cocytus,  at  the  apex  of  the  funnel  of  hell,  champed  by  the 
central  jaws  of  Satan,  at   the   absolute   zero   of  the   divine 
warmth   of  the   world.     Each   new   commentary,  each    new 
*' Life  (?)  of  Jesus,  "has  its  fine-spun  theory  of  the  motives 
that  actuated  the  great  sinner,  just  as  the  ancients  regaled 
themselves  each  with  his  own  fancy  concerning  the  sinner's 
death.     These  fancies  and  theories  seem  one  and  all  to  have 
about  equal  worth — namely,  none  at  all.     Illustrious  scholars, 
whom  it  is  mercy  not  to  name,  have  strained  the  powers  of 
rhetoric  in  description   and   denunciation   of  the   appalling 
iniquity  of  the  Treasurer  of  the   Twelve  Apostles,  lashing 
themselves    into    foam    over    the    utterly    passionless    and 
indifferent  words  of  the  Synoptics.     None  of  this  sound  and 
fury  should  detain  the  sober-minded  critic  a  moment ;  but 
the  questions  remain  perplexing  and  important :  Who  was 
Judas?     What  means  (I)Skariot(h)?     It  is  the  last  of  these 
that  must  be  treated  first.     After  all  that  has  been  written 
on  the  subject,  it  seems  surprising  how  little  appears  sure 
or  even  highly  probable.     The  form  of  the  name,  occurring 
ten  or  eleven  times,  is  itself  most  uncertain.     In  Matthew 
X,  4,  it  is  **  Judas  the  Iskariotes,"  but  in  xxvi,  14,  the  article  is 
omitted.     In  Mark  iii,  19;  xiv,  10,  it  is  "Judas  Iskarioth"; 
but  in  xiv,  43,  ''Judas  (the  Iskariotes),"  where  the  authorities 
for  and  against  the  parenthesis  seem  nearly  balanced.     In 

303 


304  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

Luke  vi,  i6,  we  read  "Judas  Iskarioth";  but  in  xxii,  3, 
"Judas  the  (so-)  called  Iskariotes."  In  John  vi,  71,  and 
xiii,  26,  we  read  "Judas,  (son)  of  Simon  Iskariotes";  but  in 
xii,  4,  "Judas the  Iskariotes,"  and  in  xiii,  2,  "Judas,  Simon's 
(son)  Iskariotes."  Six  times  we  find  the  suffix  "who 
delivered  him  up"  (never  "who  betrayed  him"),  once  along 
with  "the  Iskariotes,"  Matthew  x,  4.  Seven  times  we  read 
"  one  of  the  twelve,"  once  "  one  of  His  disciples."  Altogether 
this  "Judas  "  meets  us  twenty-two  times,  besides  John  xiv,  22, 
where  we  find  "Judas,  not  the  Iskariotes."  The  textual 
variants  are  countless.  Among  the  more  important  is  the 
reading  "  from  Karyotes  "  {airo  KapvijjTov)  in  ^,  and  others  at 
John  vi,  71  ;  also  the  same  in  D  at  John  xii,  4  ;  xiii,  2,  26, 
and  (with  the  article  6  prefixed)  in  xiv,  22  ;  also  the  form 
"  Skarioth  "  in  D  Bit  Mark  iii,  19  ;  Luke  vi,  16  ;  John  vi,  71  ; 
also  "Scariotes"  in  D  at  Matthew  x,  4;  xxvi,  14;  Mark 
xiv,  10.  This  D  is  so  highly  esteemed  by  great  text  critics, 
such  as  Volkmar,  Zahn,  Nestle,  that  they  consider  its  strange 
reading  otto  Kapviorov  as  the  original  and  even  the  only  original 
reading  in  John  (which  Tischendorf  also  admits  as  possible), 
and  as  confirming  the  translation  of  Iskarioth  as  "  Man  of 
Kerioth,"  as  if  from  the  Hebrew  ^tsh  q'riyyoth^  and  this 
derivation  may  be  called  the  accepted  one.  Holtzmann, 
e,g,y  says  in  Hand-Commentar,  i,  p.  97 :  "  Iskarioth=the 
man  from  Kariot  in  Juda,  Josh,  xv,  25."  This  interpreta- 
tion, however,  is  encountered  by  every  kind  of  improbability. 
Dalman  rejects  it  {Die  Worte  Jesu,  pp.  41,  42),  recognising 
Iskarioth  as  the  "  original"  form  "  unintelligible  to  the  Gospel 
writer  himself."  His  subtle  philological  reasons  may  be 
passed  over.  The  more  significant  facts  seem  to  be  that  the 
q^Hyyoth  of  Josh,  xv,  25,  is  not  a  city  or  town  at  all,  but  is 
the  plural  of  the  dialectic  form  qiryath  (city),  and  refers  to  a 
"  group  of  places  "  (Cheyne)  in  a  district  Hezron  not  really 
belonging  to  Judah,  the  Revised  Version  reading  correctly 
Qerioth-Hesron  ;  while  the  Qerioth  of  Jer.  xlviii,  24,  41, 
Am.  ii,  2,  belonged  to  Moab.  Keim  {Jesus  von  Nazara, 
ii,  225,  n.  2),  though  regarding  the  meaning  "  Man  of 
Karioth  "  as  certain,  saw  the  improbability  of  these  Qerioths, 
and  accordingly  discovered  in  Josephus  a  third,  now  called 
Kuriut — namely,  Koreae  {B,  /.,  i,  6,  5  ;  A.,  xiv,  3,  4),  or 


FORM  AND  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  305 

Korea  {B.  /.,  iv,  8,  i),  in  the  north  of  Judah  ;  but  few  or 
none  seem  to  have  followed  him  in  this  identification. 
Wellhausen  {Ev,  Marci,  p.  25)  clearly  sees  the  impossibility 
"  of  thinking  of  the  Hebrew  'ish  and  translating  '  Man  of 
Karioth,'"  and,  rejecting  the  notion  that  it  is  a  gentilitial, 
wisely  inclines  to  regard  it  as  "a  name  of  reproach  like 
Bandit  {Sicarius),''^  Moreover,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  Syriac  form  (Skariota)  militates  strongly  against  the 
identification  with  the  Hebrew  T^^'y^  U^'^i^.  For  this  Syriac 
form  written  in  Hebrew  letters  is  Hio  (1^)  1:DD  in  both  Sinaitic 
and  Peshita,  with  occasional  variants  in  other  less  important 
MS.  It  is  seen  that  the  Syriac  has  D,  not  tr,  and  D,  not  p — 
divergences  by  no  means  inconsiderable.  Of  course,  it  may 
be  plausibly  said  that  the  Syriac  has  merely  transliterated  the 
Greek,  as  in  many  other  cases — e.g.^  estratiota  from  stratiotes 
(soldier).  But  the  Syriac  form  presupposes  the  absence  of 
the  initial  /  from  the  Greek.  True,  the  Syriac  cannot  let 
the  word  begin  with  a  vowel  ;  however,  it  would  not  drop 
the  /,  but  would  prefix  an  Alaf  b^,  as  in  the  transliteration  of 
Akylas,  Euodia,  Iconium,  Olympas,  Italia,  Hymenius,  and 
countless  others,  or  else  a  Yod  (1),  as  in  Italica  (Acts  x,  i).^ 
For  every  reason,  then,  we  must  reject  the  accepted  inter- 
pretation "  man  of  Karioth  "  as  impossible,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  notion  that  the  term  is  a  gentilitial  at  all.  More- 
over, it  seems  quite  impossible  to  bring  the  name  Iskariot 
into  any  connection  with  the  venerable  and  wide-spread  stem 
"l^tt),  meaning  drinky  or  with  any  place-name  whatever. 

At  this  point,  then,  the  idea  of  the  Hon.  Willis  Brewer 
{The  Open  Court,  August,  1909)  that  the  name  is  connected 
with  the  Hebrew  root  S-K-R,  and  means  hired,  deserves 
serious  consideration.  This  root  occurs  often  in  the  Old 
Testament — about  forty-seven  times — always  in  the  same 
sense  of  hire,  wages,  reward,  price.  In  all  these  cases  the 
Hebrew  letters  are  "^Dtl?,  whence  the  common  Aramaean  terms 
for  wage  {sekhtroth)  and  wage-earner  (sakhtr) ;  but  in  one 
case  (Ezra  iv,  5)  the  later  form  IDD  is  used,  agreeing  exactly 
with  the  Syriac  skar-iota.     That  Judas  should  be  called  the 


^  Of  course,  Arlmathaea  is  no  exception,  since  the  A  seems  to  represent 
the  Ha  in  the  Hebraic  Ha-Ramathaim. 


3o6  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

hired  sounds  very  plausible,  especially  in  view  of  the  use 
made  by  Matthew  (xxvii,  9,  10)  of  the  passage  Zech.  xi,  12, 
where  my  price  (*'^D\t^,  sekhart)  is  twice  mentioned.  How- 
ever, while  admiring  this  suggestion,  we  must  not  adopt  it 
hastily.  For  the  older  narrative  (in  Mark)  makes  no  mention 
of  this  Old  Testament  passage.  The  name  would  seem,  then, 
to  have  originated  independently.  Besides,  the  termination 
remains  unexplained,  though  this  is  not  so  important,  and 
one  feels  that  an  active  rather  than  a  passive  sense  is 
demanded. 

But  there  is  another  root  S-K-R  (^DD)  appearing  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  once  in  the  exact  sense  which  the  New 
Testament  seems  to  require.  In  Isaiah  xix,  4,  we  read : 
"  And  /  will  give  over  Egypt  into  the  hands  of  a  cruel  lord." 
It  is  true  this  stem  regularly  means  ''shut  up,"  in  Hebrew, 
Aramaean,  and  Syriac,  and  so  may  be  rendered  even  here 
(Cheyne) ;  it  is  also  true  that  Ezek.  xxx,  12 — "■  I  will  sell  the 
land  into  the  hand  of  the  wicked  " — suggests  that  the  D  may 
be  a  mistake  for  ^,  sikkarti  for  makharti.  But  neither  of 
these  facts  can  affect  the  case,  for  the  text  was  certainly  read 
and  understood  in  that  day  precisely  as  it  is  now.  This  is 
proved  by  the  Septuagint,  which  renders  the  sikkarti  by 
7rapadu)(TU)  =  I  will  deliver  up.  It  is  well  known  that  this 
Greek  verb  7ra/oaStSovat  does  not  mean  to  betray^  but  to  give  up, 
to  hand  over,  to  deliver,  to  surrender — like  forgive  in  its 
absolute  sense,  as  in  Ben  Jonson's  line  :  ''  It  shall,  if  you 
will  ;  I  forgive  my  right"  (Cynthia^ s  Revels,  v,  2) ;  and  so  it 
is  rendered  countless  times  everywhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, save  in  connection  with  Judas,  where  it  is  universally 
rendered  betray.  But  if  the  Evangelist  had  meant  betray,  he 
would  have  said  it;  the  Greek  prodidonai  was  familiar  and  at 
hand,  and  is  constantly  used  by  ecclesiastical  writers  instead 
of  the  NQwTestSLmQnt paradidonai.  That  betray  wsls  not  meant, 
hut  deliver,  is  plain  from  the  apparent  avoidance  of  the  notion 
betray.  There  were  many  occasions  to  speak  of  Judas  as  the 
Traitor  {prodotes) ;  but  only  in  Luke  vi,  16,  is  he  so  called, 
since  there  is  no  word  paradotes,  deliverer-up,  Ueberlieferer ; 
elsewhere  a  circumlocution  is  used,  as  "who  delivered  him 
up,"  etc.  Furthermore,  the  Sinaitic  Syriac  version  {teste 
Adalbert  Merx)  definitely  terms  him  always  the  Deliverer-up, 


FORM  AND  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  307 

never  the  Betrayer,  not  even  in  Luke  vi,  16,  where  alone  the 
Greek  does  v^did  prodotes  (traitor). 

At  this  point  someone  may  take  down  Liddell  and  Scott, 
and  read  under  Trapa^i'^udjiL :  ''  Also  with  collat.  notion  of 
treachery,  like  irpo^i^ovai',  Lat.  prodere,  Xen.,  Cyr.y  v,  4,  51  ; 
Paus.y  i,  2,  I."  Now,  undoubtedly,  a  man  might  surrender 
traitorously,  even  as  he  might  kiss,  or  embrace,  or  write,  or 
speak,  or  do  many  other  things  traitorously.  But  all  this  by 
no  means  implies  that  to  kiss,  to  embrace,  to  write,  to  speak, 
ever  means  to  betray.  Accordingly,  in  none  of  the  instances 
cited  is  it  proper  to  render  the  word  by  betray.  Whatever 
"  collateral  notion "  of  treachery  may  be  present  is  to  be 
found  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  not  in  the  word 
used,  which  still  means  simply  "deliver up."  In  Xen.,  Cyr., 
it  is  stated  that  two  strongholds  under  fear  of  Cyrus  and 
persuasions  of  Gadatas  were  induced  to  give  up  their  garrison 
(£7r£f(T£  irapa^ovvai  rovq  (pyXarrovTag),  Perhaps  Gadatas  did 
corrupt  the  authorities,  but  Xenophon  has  no  interest  in  that 
fact ;  it  would  do  no  honour  to  Cyrus,  and  accordingly  he  is 
content  to  say  they  gave  up  the  guards,  with  no  further 
specification.  He  did  not  wish  to  say  they  betrayed  the 
guards,  else  he  would  have  said  so  ;  and  Dindorf  has  cor- 
rectly translated  "  perfectum  est  ut  custodes  dederent."  In 
Pausanias's  Attika  we  read  that  "at  the  entrance  into  the 

city  there  is  a  monument  to  the  Amazon  Antiope that 

when  Herakles  laid  siege  to  Themiskyra  on  the  Thermodon, 
but  was  unable  to  take  it,  Antiope,  enamoured  of  Theseus 
(who  was  warfaring  with  Herakles),  delivered  up  the  strong- 
hold." Such  was  the  story  of  the  Troezenian  Hegias  ;  the 
Athenians  told  another.  Doubtless  the  surrender  in  this 
case  was  traitorous  enough.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the 
language  to  show  it.  Monuments  are  rarely  erected  to 
traitors ;  the  story-teller  was  too  gallant  to  blacken  the 
memory  of  the  Amazon,  and  hence  he  preferred  to  say 
she  delivered  up  the  stronghold.  Now  if  someone  says  that 
the  deed  of  Judas,  however  described,  was  quite  as  treacher- 
ous, the  answer  is  that  we  have  no  interest  in  denying  this 
assertion.  We  are  not  concerned  with  the  moral  quality  of 
Iscariot's  act,  but  only  with  the  Evangelist's  representation  of 
the  act ;  and  without  any  palliation  of  his  offence  we  must 


3o8  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

reaffirm  that  the  Gospel  everywhere  represents  it  not  as  a 
betrayal,  but  merely  as  a  surrender.  It  seems  curious  that 
the  same  word  (he  was  delivered  up)  should  be  used  of  John 
the  Baptist  where  there  is  no  question  of  treachery,  and  yet 
no  visible  propriety  in  the  term  deliver  up.  Who  surrendered 
him? — and  why?  It  seems  useless  to  conjecture.  But  how- 
ever such  questions  may  be  answered,  we  may  still  say  with 
perfect  confidence  that  the  Gospels  everywhere  represent 
Judas  as  the  Deliverer-up^  never  as  Traitor. 

Now  compare  the  words  (I)Scariot(h)  and  sikkarti  in  their 
Hebrew  and  Syriac  forms,  one  under  the  other : — 

Surely  the  resemblance  is  altogether  too  great  to  be  acci- 
dental. It  is  still  further  increased  almost  to  practical 
identity  when  we  reflect  that  the  form  "■  Iskarioth,"  apparently 
the  oldest,  requires  n,  instead  of  to,  and  that  the  Syriac 
Alaf  (^)  is  regularly  used  to  vocalise,  representing  both  a  and 
e,  and  this  long  e  confounds  with  i.  However,  on  vocalisa- 
tions, whether  initial,  medial,  or  final,  one  can  lay  no  stress. 
The  important  point  is  that  the  epithet  (I)Skariot  and  the 
Hebrew  sikkarti  (deliver  up)  are  nearly  identical  in  form. 
The  immediate  and  unescapable  inference  is  that  (I)scariot(h) 
is  only  a  very  thinly  disguised^  form  of  the  Hebrew,  and 
simply  means  the  surrenderer ;  so  that  the  recurrent  suffixes 
of  the  Greek  text,  **  Who-also-delivered-him-up,"  *' the 
deliverer-up,"  etc.,  are  merely  translations  of  the  epithet 
(I)skariot(h),  where  the  kai  (also)  in  the  Greek  seems  to 
re-echo  the  initial  1  in  the  Hebrew.  This  seems  to  be  as 
natural  as  possible — almost  inevitable,  for  it  can  hardly  be 
casual  coincidence  that  the  Greek  suffixes  yield  the  apparent 
meaning  of  the  Semitic  name.  (I)skariot(h)  is,  then,  pre- 
cisely what  Wellhausen  felt  it  must  be,  a  "Schimpfname," 
a  sobriquet,  an  opprobrious  nick-name — the  most  appropriate, 
and  even  unavoidable.     We   recall,  finally,  that  in    Isaiah 

'  Absolute  identity  is,  of  course,  not  to  be  sought  for.  The  artist  who 
first  devised  the  name  knew  that  the  word  in  Isaiah  (xix,  4)  was  a  verb^  and 
he  designed  to  reproduce  it  in  a  noun-iovvsx  not  exactly  but  near  enough  to 
make  the  name  a  kind  of  riddle  "  vocal  to  the  wise."  One  may  suspect  that  he 
modelled  the  form  Skariotes  on  Stratiotes,  though  there  are  other  possibilities. 


JUDAS  =JUD^US  309 

(xix,  4)  the  surrender  is  into  the  hands  of  a  cruel  lord,  and  in 
Ez.  XXX,  12,  the  sale  is  into  the  hands  of  wicked  men,  echoes 
of  which  we  seem  to  hear  in  the  Gospel  phrases, "  into  the  hands 
of  sinners"  or  "sinful  men." — The  possible  claims  of  "^ptlJ 
(deception)  in  this  connection,  in  spite  of  the  phrase  y)J2}2 
IpUlj  need  not  be  canvassed. 

JUDAS  =JUD^US 

The  second  problem,  of  (I)scariot(h),  would  seem,  then, 
to  be  solved,  and,  in  fact,  in  a  surprisingly  satisfactory- 
manner.  But  the  question  remains,  **  Who  was  Judas?" 
Against  the  view  that  he  was  a  mere  man,  like  Arnold  or 
Burr,  there  lie  the  weightiest  considerations.  In  the  first 
place,  the  motive  to  surrender  seems  utterly  lacking.  The 
conceit  that  he  wished  to  provoke  Jesus  to  a  display  of 
miraculous  power  and  an  immediate  establishment  of  the 
Kingdom  is  quite  inadmissible,  though  championed  by 
De  Quincey  and,  mirahile  dictu^  by  the  later  Volkmar  {Jesus 
Nazarenusy  p.  121).  Suppose  the  plan  had  succeeded,  what 
good  would  it  have  done  Judas?  Would  Jesus  have  kept 
him  in  his  place  as  treasurer  after  such  treason  ?  That  Judas 
was  a  veritable  devil  from  the  start  seems  to  be  the  most 
plausible  explanation,  and  extreme  orthodoxy  might  indeed 
maintain  that  he  was  chosen  by  Jesus  because  of  his  devilry, 
as  an  instrument  towards  the  divinely  appointed  end.  This 
would  seem  to  be  consistent  enough,  and  orthodoxy  shows 
itself  here,  as  at  so  many  other  points,  far  superior  in 
dialectic  alertness  to  Liberalism,  which  is  deplorably 
illogical,  limping  on  both  legs.  But  can  any  one  seriously 
entertain  such  a  notion  ?  There  is  not  the  slightest  hint  of 
it  in  the  Synoptics.  These  know  nothing  of  Judas  as  a  bad 
man.  They  say  he  **  surrendered  "  Jesus  to  the  authorities, 
nothing  more.  Even  the  money  (a  contemptible  four-months* 
wages,  according  to  Matthew)  appears  as  a  perfectly  voluntary 
bonus  in  Mark's  account,  promised  him  after  his  proposal  to 
the  high-priests.  But  on  this  circumstance  we  lay  no  stress. 
It  seems  strange,  however,  that  the  Synoptics  should  have  no 
word  of  condemnation  for  the  surrenderer  ;  still  stranger  that 
they  should   never  assign   any   motive   for    the   surrender, 


3IO  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

especially  as  they  are  very  free  with  motives  in  general. 
Apparently  they  were  no  wiser  than  the  moderns,  and  could 
find  no  explanation.  Otherwise  Luke  would  hardly  have 
ascribed  Iscarioth's  conduct  to  the  devil  that  had  entered 
into  him,  which  would  seem  to  be  a  dernier  ressort.  John, 
according  to  his  wont,  goes  much  further,  declaring  that 
Judas  was  a  thief,  that  the  devil  prompted  him  to  the 
surrender,  that  Satan  entered  into  him,  who  himself  was  a 
devil.  All  this  we  recognise  at  once  as  part  of  John's 
manner  in  working  over  the  Synoptists.  It  seems  even 
plainer  from  these  imaginary  reasons  than  from  the  discreeter 
silence  of  Matthew,  and  especially  of  Mark,  that  the  Evan- 
gelists could  imagine  no  plausible  reason  for  the  surrender. 
And  yet  the  reason,  had  there  been  any,  could  scarcely  have 
been  kept  so  profound  a  secret.  Moreover,  even  if  it  had 
not  been  discoverable,  why  were  Matthew,  and  particularly 
Mark,  so  utterly  indifferent  thereto?  Their  fancies  were 
lively  ;  why  did  they  not  invent  a  reason  ?  The  only  answer 
would  seem  to  be  that  Mark  at  least  felt  that  the  matter  was 
not  one  for  the  assignment  of  human  motives  ;  that  it  could 
not  be  understood  in  any  such  childish  way. 

If  the  surrender  be  contemplated  from  the  side  of  the 
authorities,  it  is  equally  incomprehensible.  What  need  had 
they  of  Judas  and  his  kiss?  None  whatever.  Undoubtedly 
they  could  have  arrested  Jesus  at  any  time  anywhere  in 
broad  daylight,  in  perfect  safety.  His  disciples  seem  to  have 
been  unarmed  or  indisposed  to  much  resistance,  even  if  one 
did  cut  off  an  ''earlet."  He  himself  sits  apparently  alone 
and  unnoticed,  quietly  watching  the  throng  cast  in  contri- 
butions to  the  temple  treasury.  And  what  need  to  fear  the 
people,  who  cried  **  Crucify  him,  crucify  him  "?  Look  at  it, 
then,  which  way  you  will,  the  surrender  appears  unmotived, 
unnecessary,  unintelligible.  Moreover,  it  seems  to  have 
formed  no  part  of  the  earliest  tradition.  In  the  Apocalypse 
(xxi,  14)  the  Twelve  appear  unbroken  in  array,  as  immovable 
foundations  of  the  celestial  city-wall  ;  there  is  no  hint  of 
defection.  "  The  Apostle,"  too,  speaks  of  the  Jesus  as  appear- 
ing to  the  Twelve,  though  it  is  possible  that  twelve  might  be 
used  here  technically,  even  if  only  eleven  had  been  present. 
To  be  sure,  he  does  refer  to  a  surrender  in  the  words,  "  the 


JUDAS=:JUD^US  311 

same  night  in  which  he  was  surrendered,"  but  makes  no 
allusion  to  the  surrenderee  Some  one  may  say  such  allusion 
was  unnecessary.  Perhaps  ;  but  on  closer  scrutiny  we  are 
astounded  at  the  nature  of  the  Apostle's  statement :  ''  For  it 
is  from  the  Lord  that  I  received  what  I  also  delivered  to  you, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus,  etc."  (tyw  yap  irap^Xafiov  airo  rov  Kvpiov, 
o  jcat  TrapidujKa  vjXiv).  Notice  the  emphatic  position  of  the 
lyu)  :  Whatever  others  may  say,  "  I  received  from  the  Lord," 
etc.  Critics  in  despair  may  say  that  "  from  the  Lord  "  means 
from  the  Jerusalem  Church,  the  Urgemeinde  of  German 
imagination.  But  such  a  consummate  Grecian  as  Georg 
Heinrici  knows  better,  and  plainly  tells  us  (in  Meyer's  Kom- 
mejttary  pp.  325  /)  that  there  is  no  such  reference.  It  is, 
indeed,  plain  that  none  of  the  Apostle's  readers  would  think 
of  understanding  "  I  received  from  the  Lord  "  as  "  I  received 
from  Peter  or  John  ";  it  is  only  the  bewildered  modern  com- 
mentator that  could  stumble  on  such  an  idea.  The  reference 
must  be  to  some  form  of  supernatural  revelation.  Hence  it 
can  at  most  testify  to  a  subjective  experience  of  the  Apostle's, 
not  to  any  tradition  of  the  Twelve.  Besides,  the  present 
writer  seems  to  have  proved  decisively  that  this  passage  is 
an  interpolation  in  the  Corinthian  Epistle  (pp.  i/\6ff).  As  to 
the  account  (in  Acts  i)  of  the  election  of  Matthias  (of  whom 
we  never  hear  again)  to  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  lapse  of 
Judas,  its  late  origin  lies  open  to  view  in  the  statements 
about  the  field  Akel-damach  =  field  of  sleeping  =  cemetery. 
The  consciousness  revealed  is  clearly  impossible  for  one 
speaking  of  an  event  that  could  have  occurred  at  the  earliest 
less  than  two  months  before.  The  speech,  then,  has  been 
composed  by  the  historian  ('*  for  the  Scriptures  must  needs 
be  fulfilled  ")  and  placed  in  the  mouth  of  Peter.  We  notice 
that  Judas  is  here  spoken  of  as  a  ''guide." 

We  are  unable,  then,  to  find  the  notion  of  a  man  Judas 
as  surrenderer  in  the  earliest  extra-evangelic  forms  of  the 
Christian  story ;  outside  of  the  Gospels  there  is  no  real 
support  of  the  statements  that  the  Gospels  themselves  fail  to 
make  comprehensible.  Now  consider  for  a  moment  what  it 
is  that  one  can  properly  be  said  to  surrender  or  deliver  up. 
Surely  nothing  but  what  one  has  ;  surrender  and  delivery 
seem  to  imply  previous  possession.     But  in  what  possible 


312  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

sense  could  Judas  be  said  ever  to  have  possessed  the  Jesus? 
As  a  man,  in  none  at  all.  Moreover,  as  the  conduct  of  a 
man  his  surrender  has  been  seen  to  be  in  every  way  unintel- 
ligible. But  are  we  sure  that  he  was  a  man  ?  To  my  mind, 
he  was  surely  not.  Is  it  mere  accident  that  Judas  is  so 
nearly  Judceus  ?  Or  does  he  stand  for  Jewry,  for  the  Jewish 
people  ?  This  seems  to  become  a  necessary  hypothesis  as 
soon  as  we  perceive  the  impossibility  of  understanding  Judas 
as  a  man.  On  this  hypothesis  everything  becomes  clear. 
The  delivery  was  really  to  the  Gentiles  ;  the  phrase,  "  They 
[the  Jewish  authorities]  shall  deliver  him  to  the  Gentiles," 
seems  to  belong  to  the  earliest  Gospel  narrative  (Matthew 
XX,  19  ;  Mark  x,  33  ;  Luke  xviii,  32),  and  to  lay  bare  the  heart 
of  the  whole  matter.  It  is  noteworthy  that  while  in  Matthew 
and  Mark  the  surrender  to  the  Jewish  authorities  is  mentioned 
first,  and  afterwards  the  surrender  to  the  Gentiles,  in  Luke 
this  latter  alone  is  mentioned.  Luke  certainly  presents 
generally  a  younger  form  than  Mark,  but  occasionally,  it 
would  seem,  an  older,  which  need  not  surprise  us.  I  suspect 
that  the  oldest  thought  was  of  the  surrender  of  the  great  Idea 
of  the  Jesus,  of  the  Jesus-cult,  by  the  Jews  to  the  heathen. 
This,  in  fact,  was  the  supreme^  the  astounding^  fact  of  early 
Christian  history^  and  engaged  intensely  the  minds  of  men. 
It  is  not  strange  that  it  should  find  such  manifold  expression 
by  parable  and  by  symbol  in  the  Gospels.  The  wonder  would 
be  if  it  had  not.  The  story  of  Judas  and  his  surrender  seems 
to  be  the  most  dramatic  treatment  the  great  fact  has  any- 
where received.  Other  less  elaborate  sketches  are  found  in 
the  parables  of  Dives  and  Lazarus,  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  and 
of  the  Rich  One  who  "  with  lowering  look  went  away  (from 
Jesus)  sorrowful,  for  he  had  many  possessions  "  (the  Law, 
the  Prophets,  the  Promises,  the  Oracles  of  God).  That 
Israel  is  here  meant  becomes  evident,  if  not  already  so,  when 
we  compare  Mark  x,  22,  ''  But  he  with  lowering  look,  at  the 
word,  went  away  grieving,"^  with  Isaiah  Ivii,  17,  "And  he 
was  grieved,  and  went  on  with  lowering  look  in  his  ways.'*"* 

*  6  5^  OTiryj/cto-as  eTrt  t^  X67<fJ  aTrr\\Qev  Xwovfievos. 

'  Kal  iXvTnfjdT]  koI  iiropevdrj  crrvyvbs  iv  ra?s  65ots  airov.  In  Kautzsch's  Text 
Bihel  (1904)  we  find  the  Hebrew  translated  (by  Victor  Ryssel)  thus  :  "Then 
went  he  backsliding  thence  on  self-chosen  way."     In  the  latest  edition  Budde 


JUDAS  =JUD^US  313 

The  prophet  is  describing  God's  dealing  with  Jacob,  who  is 
still  his  Beloved,  though  grieved  for  a  brief  season  (^paxv  n). 
The  very  rare  Septuagint  verb  (TTvyvdZo)  shows  that  Mark  is 
merely  re-echoing  Isaiah,  although  Dittmar  does  not  note 
the  parallel.  There  are  enough  other  considerations  that 
confirm  this  interpretation  ;  but  there  is  space  to  mention 
only  one — namely,  that  the  Jesus  ''  loved  "  this  Rich  One. 
Now,  this  ascription  of  such  a  feeling  to  the  Jesus  is  quite 
without  parallel  in  Mark,  whose  picture  of  the  Jesus  is  sin- 
gularly devoid  of  human  attributes — cnrXayxviZoiuLaL  (used  thrice 
of  the  Jesus)  is  an  exception  that  strongly  confirms  the  rule  ; 
it  merely  renders  the  Old  Testament  DFI"^.  constantly  and 
practically  exclusively  used  of  or  in  connection  with  Jehovah, 
exceptions  being  really  confirmatory.  The  explanation  is 
simple  and  near-lying.  Says  Jehovah  (Hosea  xi,  i) :  "  When 
Israel  was  young,  then  I  loved  him."  That  Matthew  (xix, 
16-26)  felt  such  to  be  the  reference  is  hinted  with  exquisite 
art  in  the  word  vtavto-Koc,  which  he  applies  to  the  Rich  One, 
who,  according  to  Mark,  had  kept  all  commands  ''  from  his 
youth,"  which  must  then  have  been  behind  him.  But 
Matthew,  as  every  one  knows,  was  a  literalist,  setting  great 
store  by  the  exact  words  of  the  Scripture  ;  and,  observing 
that  Israel  was  young  when  loved,  he  boldly  turned  Mark's 
One  (elc)  into  a  Youth  (veavio-zcoc).  What  other  explanation 
can  be  offered  for  this  "correction  of  Mark"? 

Of  course,  it  is  easy  to  say  that  the  symbolism  of  Judas 
(=Judaeus)  has  not  been  carried  out  consistently.  The 
surrender  is  made  to  the  Jews  themselves  (high-priest  and 
other  dignitaries),  who  then  deliver  to  the  heathen.  We 
answer  that  the  symbol  has  come  down  to  us  only  in  a  highly 
elaborated  and  historicised  form ;  such  elaboration  must 
always  do  violence  to  the  original  idea.  A  symbol,  no  more 
than  a  metaphor,  will  bear  pressing,  though  often  pressed. 
A  single  point  of  even  remote  resemblance  will  suffice  for 
any  simile. 

Beholding  whom,  men  think  how  fairer  far 
Than  all  the  steadfast  stars  the  wandering  star  ! 

In  a  cool  hour  Mr.  Lang  would  doubtless  confess  and  deny 

translates  it  thus:    "And  he  went   apostate,   whither    his    heart  drove   him 
{strictly,  on  the  way  of  his  heart)." 


3*4  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

not,  and  that,  too,  without  prejudice  to  the  great  beauty  of 
his  verses,  that  the  likeness  of  Lord  Byron  to  any  known 
member  of  our  planetary  system  is  extremely  faint  and 
elusive.  The  ways  of  the  overworker  are  past  finding  out ; 
it  would  be  idle  to  attempt  to  trace  the  steps  that  have  con- 
ducted to  such  a  composite  result  as  now  lies  before  us  in 
the  Gospels.  Yet  even  there  the  evidences  of  gradual  evolu- 
tion from  Mark  to  John  are  open  and  manifest.  Let  us 
remember  that  even  the  former  transports  us  not  to  the 
source,  but  only  half-way  up  the  stream.  When  we  consider 
other  parts  of  the  evangelic  narrative  and  note  the  rich 
harvests  —  thirty,  sixty,  a  hundred-fold  —  that  have  been 
garnered  from  single  seminal  ideas,  the  development  assumed 
in  the  present  case  seems  scarcely  excessive.  But  the  inter- 
pretation of  Judas  here  suggested  is  not  presented  as  a  finality 
nor  as  proved  by  the  considerations  advanced.  It  is  part  of 
a  general  system  of  New  Testament  exegesis ;  it  stands  or 
falls  with  the  present  writer's  total  conception  of  the  genesis 
of  Christianity,  to  which  it  lends,  but  from  which  in  far 
greater  measure  it  borrows,  strength. 

Not  so,  however,  the  decipherment  of  (I)scariot(h).  This 
is  a  philologic  matter,  not  by  any  means  sharing  the  fate  of 
any  theory  of  Christian  origins,  but  apparently  solitary  as 
Kant's  Thing-in-Itself.  But  even  it  may  nevertheless  enter 
into  relations.  For  the  well-attested  Z)-form,  airo  KapvwTovy 
must  now  appear  as  an  early  attempt  to  interpret  the  epithet 
Iskariot,  the  force  of  which  was  no  longer  felt.  Hereby  a 
strong  sidelight  is  thrown  on  a  seemingly  similar  attempt 
to  interpret  the  far  more  important  epithet,  Nazaratos.  It 
seems  to  be  proved  that  this  appellative  was  a  very  old  one, 
antedating  our  era  (see  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus,  ii)  ;  in  fact, 
we  find  the  name  Nasiru  embedded  in  a  list  of  tribes  or  classes 
on  the  clay  tablet  inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser  III.  We 
may  be  sure  that  the  name  is  not  derived  from  Nazareth,  but 
is  a  development  from  the  familiar  stem  N-S-R,  meaning 
guard,  protect.  However,  in  Matthew  ii,  23,  the  term  is 
deduced  from  Nazareth,  which  city,  under  various  forms  of 
the  name,  is  thoroughly  naturalised  in  our  Gospels.  Even 
in  Mark  i,  9,  we  read  that  "Jesus  came  from  (airo)  Nazareth 
of  Galilee."    This  seems  like  a  later  addition  to  the  narrative, 


JUDAS  =JUD^US  315 

as  indicated  by  the  title  'Itjo-ovc,  used  here  without  the  article, 
but  elsewhere  regularly  with  it,  in  this  Gospel.'  Moreover, 
the  text  is  uncertain  ;  the  reading  elg  for  ano  may  be  older. 
In  Matthew  (xxi,  11)  we  find  *'the  prophet  Jesus  6  airo  NaSap^O," 
and  the  same  Greek  phrase  also  in  John  i,  45  ;  Acts  x,  38. 
We  may  now  understand  this  phrase.  It  seems  to  be  nothing 
but  an  attempt  to  explain  Nazoraios^  precisely  as  aTro  Kapvwrov 
is  an  attempt  to  explain  {I)skarwL  As  to  Nazareth  itself,  of 
course  it  is  there  now,  plain  to  see  f  but  in  olden  times  it 
seems  to  have  borne  another  name,  Hinnaton,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  the  El-Amarna  tablets  and  the  Annals  of 
Tiglath-Pileser  III.  Both  words  mean  the  same — namely, 
defence,  protection  ;  and  we  may  now  see  how  the  '*  city 
called  Nazareth "  may  have  come  into  being.  The  new 
name  Nazareth,  meaning  defence,  was  applied  to  the  old 
town  Hinnaton,  meaning  protection.  Some  perceived  that 
this  name  would  not  yet  yield  the  desired  gentilitial  Nazaree, 
and  accordingly  wrote  it  Nazara,  the  form  preferred  by  Keim, 
but  too  weakly  attested.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  the 
mystery  surrounding  these  names  is  clearing  up. 

The  passages  in  the  tablets  are,  according  to  Winckler  : 
In  II  (13-17),  letter  of  Burraburias,  King  of  Kardunias,  to 
Naphururia,  King  of  Egypt :  "  Now  my  merchants,  who 
journeyed  with  Ahi-tabu,  and  tarried  in  Kinahhi  on  business: 
after  Ahi-tabu  went  on  his  way  to  my  brother,  in  city  Hi-in- 
na-tu-ni  of  land  Kinahhi  [i-na  (alu)  Hi-in-na-tu-ni  sa  (matu) 
Ki-na-ah-hi,  etc.]."  Ki-na-ah-hi  =  Canaan.  Further,  196 
(24-32),  in  the  continuation  of  a  letter  we  find  :  ''  But  Surata 
took  Lapaja  out  of  Magidda,  and  said  to  me,  ^  Upon  a  ship 
I  will  bring  him  to  the  king.'  But  Surata  took  him  and  sent 
him  from  (city)  Hinatuni  home  [u  ji-tar-sir-su  is-tu  (alu) 
Hi-na-tu-na  a-na  biti-su]." 

The  inscription   in  the  Annals  (as  edited  by  Paul  Rost, 

1893)  reads  :  "  i.  232 [sal-lat]  (alu)  Hi-na-tu-na,  650 

sal-lat  (alu)  Ka-na (captives)  (city)  Hi-na-tu-na, 

650  captives  (city)  Ka-na ."     As  the  record  is  lost  after 

Ka-na,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  Cana  of  Galilee  is  meant.     If 

*  Vocatives  and  i,  i,  x,  47,  xvi,  6,  naturally  excepted. 

'^  Yet  Burkitt  seems  to  think  the  modern  has  naug-ht  to  do  with  the  ancient 
village,  which  latter  he  would  rather  identify  with  Chorazin, 


3i6  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

one  should  find  a  scrap  of  paper  torn  immediately  after  the 
letters  Adria^  one  would  not  be  sure  that  the  reference  was 
to  Adria  in  Italy  ;  it  might  be  to  Adrianople.  But  since 
Hinatuni  was  certainly  in  Canaan,  the  suggestion  of  Cana, 
six  miles  north  of  our  Nazareth  (=  Hinatuni),  appears  to  lie 
near  at  hand. 

That  Judas  Iscariot  typifies  the  Jewish  people  in  its  rejection 
of  the  Jesus-cult  seems  so  obvious,  it  seems  to  meet  us  so 
close  to  the  threshold  of  the  inner  sense  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  it  may  move  our  wonder  that  any  one  should  over- 
look it.  However,  the  ablest,  and  even  the  boldest,  the  most 
lynx-eyed,  critics  have  passed  it  by.  In  Cramer's  Catena  we 
find  only  inanities  on  the  theme  of  Judas  ;  he  is  no  longer 
the  Surrenderer,  but  the  Traitor  {prodotes) — pro  has,  indeed, 
quite  displaced  para — and  his  covetousness  and  general  vile- 
ness  wax  page  after  page.  At  John  xiii,  30,  it  is  asked  : 
*'  Why  does  the  Evangelist  say  that  it  was  night  when  Judas 
went  out?  To  teach  us  how  reckless  he  was,  for  not  even 
the  time  (of  day)  could  restrain  his  impulse."  From  such 
there  is  naught  to  hope.  Bruno  Bauer,  of  course,  **  resolved  " 
the  whole  thing  into  a  caustic  curve,  formed  by  reflections 
from  the  Old  Testament.  In  this  case  he  found  the  main 
surface  of  reflection  in  Psalm  xli,  9  :  *'  Yea,  mine  familiar 
friend,  in  whom  I  trusted,  which  did  eat  of  my  bread,  hath 
lifted  up  heel  against  me  "  {Kritik  der  evangelischen  Ges~ 
chichte,  xiii,  85,  4).  "  Out  of  that  Psalm-word  the  whole 
scene  has  arisen."  But  he  does  not  seem  to  connect  Judas 
with  Jewry.  Strauss  discusses  Judas  at  length  {Lebenjesu 
kritisch  hearheitet,  §§  118,  119),  but  without  throwing  any 
light  on  the  matter.  Volkmar,  who  fixed  his  gaze  so  intently 
on  the  Gospels,  and  who  saw  deeper  than  any  of  his  con- 
temporaries (with  the  possible  exception  of  Loman),  in  his 
great  work  Marcus  (p.  555)  declared  that  "  for  Mark,  Judas, 
one  of  the  Twelve,  is  the  symbol  of  the  Judaism  that  slew  the 
Christ  J  which  in  the  first  disciples  was  most  closely  united  with 
Him  till  the  end^  Iskariot,  however,  he  still  regarded  as 
historical  and  as  "actually  notorious  as  apostate."  Upon  him 
Mark  seized  as  a  fitting  vehicle  for  his  own  idea  of  Judaism, 
and  the  fusion  of  the  symbolic  and  historic  yielded  us  Judas- 
Iskariot.     Volkmar  has  no  doubt  that  this  last  word   means 


ADDENDUM  I.  317 

"  Man  of  Kerioth,"  and  is  rightly  explained  by  D's  form, 
aTTo  KapvwToVf  in  John.  The  great  Zuricher  had  wonderful 
insight.  His  Marcus  (1875)  is,  indeed,  a  volume  of  visions  ; 
but  it  is  almost  unreadable,  and  was  long  since  sealed  with 
the  seven  seals  of  oblivion,  which  even  Wrede  could  not 
loose.  He  himself  shrank  back  half  affrighted  at  what  he 
saw,  and  in  his  swan  song  {Jesus  Nazarenus^  1882)  we  seem 
to  hear  a  palinode.  Meantime  his  central  critical  thesis  of 
the  priority  of  Mark  has  become  a  commonplace  of  criticism, 
though  the  Logia-source,  so  diligently  exploited  by  Matthew, 
might  seem  to  boast  justly  still  higher  antiquity.  Volkmar's 
notion  that  the  Pauline  Mark,  by  insistence  on  the  phrase 
"  One  of  the  Twelve,"  means  to  hint  that  a  certain  element  of 
the  old  Judaism  clung  to  the  last  to  "  the  primitive  group  of 
disciples,"  has,  indeed,  a  certain  plausibility  ;  but  it  seems  to 
assume  a  primitive  group  that  never  existed,  to  make  this 
Gospel  unnecessarily  controversial,  and  to  magnify  a  rela- 
tively insignificant  matter,  as  did  Baur's  criticism  in  general, 
even  in  its  later  and  most  severely  critical  presentments. 


ADDENDUM  L 


In  t\iQ  Hibbert  Journal,  July  (191 1),  p.  891,  Professor  Cheyne 
thinks  the  derivation  of  Skariot  from  sikkarW  might  perhaps 
pass  if  sikkarti  occurred  in  a  passage  like  Psalm  xli,  9,  one 
of  the  stock-passages  on  which  a  pre-Christian  scheme  of  the 
life  of  the  God-man  would  be  based.     Otherwise  not,  etc." 

The  syllogism  seems  to  be  that  no  unfamiliar  passage 
would  be  used  by  the  artist  in  constructing  "  the  scheme  of 
the  life,  etc.";  this  (Isaiah  xix,  4)  is  an  unfamiliar  passage, 
therefore  it  would  not  be  so  used — a  very  pretty  Celarent, 
but  for  a  limp  in  both  legs.  We  have  no  right  to  suppose 
that  passages  unfamiliar  to  us  were  also  unfamiliar  to  the 
men  of  one  book,  the  intense  religionists  of  the  border 
centuries.  The  number  of  direct  citations  from  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  New  and  in  related  works  is  very  great, 


3i8  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

but  the  number  of  hints  and  oblique  aUusions  to  the  Old 
Testament  is  far  greater  still.  Dittmar's  extremely  com- 
pacted Catalogue  of  Parallels^  containing  only  the  numbers 
of  chapters  and  verses,  but  no  word  of  citation,  covers  sixty- 
four  large  pages,  and  yet  makes  no  pretension  to  completeness. 
It  would  appear  that  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
embraced  in  the  collective  religious  consciousness  of  that 
era.  While  some  passages  might  be  called  stock-passages, 
yet  almost  any  passage,  even  in  Nehemiah  or  Canticles  or 
Esther,  might  at  any  moment  be  called  into  play.  So  much 
against  the  major  premiss  de  jure^  as  Arnauld  would  say. 
But  the  minor  is  equally  faulty  de  facto.  For  it  happens  that 
the  immediately  preceding  verse  (xix,  2)  is  actually  exploited 
in  the  Gospels — Matthew  xxiv,  7  ;  Mark  xiii,  8  ;  Lukexxi,  10 
("  Nation  against  nation,  and  kingdom  against  kingdom  ")  ; 
at  least,  so  think  Dittmar  and  others.  There  seem  to  be  still 
other  echoes  in  the  New  Testament,  but  on  these  we  need  not 
insist.  It  seems  plain  that  the  "  Utterance  of  Egypt,"  whether 
Isaianic  or  not,  is  no  unimportant  part  of  the  book  of  the 
Prophet,  nor  is  there  any  reason  for  depreciating  it  or  sup- 
posing it  unfamiliar  to  the  pre-  and  Proto-Christians. 

Professor  Cheyne  wisely  recognises  that  ''Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  not  betrayed  or  surrendered  to  the  Jewish 
authorities,  whether  by  *  Judas'  or  by  any  one  else."  Still 
further  he  declares  :  "The  ^Twelve  Apostles,'  too,  are  to  me 
as  unhistorical  as  the  seventy  disciples."  These  things  are 
nobly  and  bravely  said. ^  But  the  illustrious  critic  still  clings, 
not,  indeed,  it  would  seem,  to  any  real,  living,  breathing, 
pulsing  Jesus  the  man,  but  to  the  merest  simulacrum,  as 
empty  of  any  value  as  the  exuviae  of  animals.  The  Jesus 
of  orthodoxy  is,  indeed,  a  glorious  being,  although  without 
scriptural  or  other  warrant.  The  Jesus  of  Renan  is  also  not 
inglorious,  though  no  more  historically  and  far  less  logically 
warranted.    The  Jesus  of  Cheyne  and  Loisy  and  Wellhausen 

^  It  seems  strang-e  to  add  that  "  the  surrender cannot  be  separated  from 

the  end  of  the  surrenderer  ;  if  the  one  is  symbolical,  so  also  ought  to  be  the 
other."  For  the  separation  is  actual  in  Mark,  who  says  nothing  of  the«"  end  " 
of  Judas.  Plainly  the  contradictory  stories  of  his  end  (Matthew  xxvii,  3-10, 
Acts  i,  15-26)  are  much  later  fancies.  That  the  Jews  took  no  offence  at  the 
symbolism  of  which  they  "  do  not  appear  to  have  had  any  inkling,"  need  move 
no  one's  wonder.  Surely  there  was  enough  else  "  offensive  "  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  they  passed  by  in  silence. 


ADDENDUM  I.  31P 

is  not  only  precisely  as  unwarranted,  but  is  also  weak, 
miserable,  and  functionless,  entirely  superfluous  on  the  stage 
of  history,  explaining  absolutely  nothing,  but  blocking  every 
otherwise  satisfactory  explanation,  an  utterly  unmanageable 
fifth  wheel  to  the  car  of  critico-historical  theory.  Why  such 
scholars  should  insist  on  retaining  such  a  factor  after  reducing 
its  potency  absolutely  to  zero  is  truly  bewildering.  The 
motive,  whatever  it  may  be,  seems  entirely  illogical,  and  yet 
it  can  hardly  be  sentimental,  for  the  simulacrum  in  question 
satisfies  no  emotional  need  ;  it  is  not  especially  lovable,  not 
beautiful,  not  attractive,  not  impressive,  not  even  particularly, 
much  less  uniquely,  admirable.^  Verily  such  a  critic  may 
exclaim  :  "  Me  miserable  !  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  this 
body  of  death?" 

Professor  Cheyne  thinks  there  is  need  for  some  general 
theory  that  shall  *'  explain  whole  groups  of  similar  names  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  " — a  consummation  devoutly 
to  be  wished  ;  and  no  man  has  ever  lived  more  competent  to 
frame  one.  He  holds  ''  that  all  the  surnames  of  the  Apostles 
in  the  Gospels  come  from  old  names  of  regions  or  districts 
with  which  the  families  of  the  bearers  had  been  connected, 
and  the  true  meaning  of  which  had  generally  been  long 
forgotten  " — a  most  ingenious  hypothesis  ;  but  in  the  nature 
of  the  case  it  would  require  a  huge  amount  of  well-sifted 
evidence  to  give  it  standing.  Accordingly,  **  Iscariot,  then, 
is  a  corruption  of  an  old  name,  the  full  form  of  which  was 
Ashhart,  or,  with  the  gentilic  suffix,  Ashhartai."  One  awaits 
with  lively  interest  the  production  of  the  proofs  which  Pro- 
fessor Cheyne  must  have  in  reserve.  Meantime,  if  the 
"  Twelve  Apostles  "  were  unhistorical,  were  not  the  "  bearers  " 
of  the  surnames  of  the  Apostles  as  well  as  their  families 
equally  unhistorical  ?  And  what,  then,  shall  we  think  of  the 
"  regions  or  districts  with  which  the  families  of  the  (imaginary) 
bearers  had  been  connected  "?     One  can  hardly  be  sure  in 

*  Nay,  alas !  the  case  is  even  worse,  far  worse.  According-  to  the 
"  eschatological  theory,"  now  in  full  feather  and  favour,  the  latest  cloud-form 
of  critical  "  dust  that  rises  up  and  is  lig-htly  laid  again,"  the  Jesus  was  nothing 
but  an  '*  ignorant  enthusiast " — but  one  of  many  ! — whose  foolish  teaching  has 
conquered  the  intelligence  of  the  alien  Aryan  race  and  shaped  the  civilisation 
of  thousands  of  years  !  Such  criticism  must  be  thrice  welcome  in  Ultra- 
montaine  circles,  for  it  constitutes  the  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  Rationalism,  a 
demonstration  that  he  who  runs  may  read  and  understand  and  never  forget. 


320  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

such  matters,  yet  it  might  appear  that  ung-eographical  regions 
or  districts  were  quite  good  enough  for  unhistorical  Apostles. 
And  when  every  other  obstacle  is  overcome,  how  shall  we 
explain  the  central  fact  that  Skariot  is  so  often  declared 
gratuitously  to  be  *' the  surrenderer,"  unless  this  be  what 
Skariot  really  means?  This  is  the  coincidence  that  can 
hardly  be  accidental,  and  is  explained  by  no  other  etymology 
of  the  name.  One  need  not  insist  on  the  obvious  fact  that, 
if  Iscariot  be  a  corruption  of  Ashharti,  it  is  a  corruption 
sufficiently  corrupt. 

Professor  Cheyne  asks  :  "  Need  I  remark  that,  in  Hebrew, 
*the  guardian'  would  be  ha-noser^  not  ha-nosriV  Inas- 
much as  three  pages  of  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  (47-50)  are 
given  to  the  consideration  of  this  point,  the  answer  would 
seem  to  be  that  one  need  not.  But  when  it  is  said  that  "  surely 
neither  Hannathon  nor  Nazareth  means  defence^''  it  must 
be  replied  that  authorities  seem  to  differ.  Professor  Cheyne 
refers  to  Hannathon  and  Nazareth  in  the  Encyclopcedia 
Biblica,  One  may  read  the  nine  lines  on  "  Hannathon  "  and 
the  interesting  article  on  *'  Nazareth "  repeatedly,  without 
finding  any  reason  for  the  statement  just  quoted.  Professor 
Haupt  declares  :  "  Both  Hittalon  and  Hinnathon  mean 
protection  " — a  judgment,  so  far  as  Hinnatuni  is  concerned, 
confirmed  by  other  most  eminent  Assyriologists.  As  to 
Nazareth,  the  force  of  the  termination  may  be  uncertain, 
even  as  the  termination  itself  is,  but  hardly  the  stem  Nazar, 
which  appears  in  the  older  form  Nasar-aioi ;  and  about  the 
Hebrew  Nasar  (to  guard)  there  is  no  doubt. 

The  interpretation  given  to  the  name  of  "  the  city  called 
Nazareth"  as  *' the  place  of  shooting  plants"  does  not  con- 
vince at  once  by  its  inherent  plausibility. 

In  the  statements  that  "the  name  underlying  Nazareth  is 
clearly  Resin  (or  Rezon),"  that  **  the  people  transposed  the 
letters  to  produce  a  more  pleasing  or  obvious  sense,  and 
Nazareth  (place  of  shooting  plants)  and  Nazorai  (Nazarene) 
were  the  results,"  we  recognise  the  conjectures  of  a  supreme 
scholar  ;  but  we  do  not  forget  that  just  such  a  scholar 
(Bentley)  similarly  conjectured  that  "  darkness  visible  "  should 
be  read  "  transpicuous  gloom,"  as  producing  "  a  more  pleasing 
or  obvious  sense."    It  maybe  that  Paris  is  but  such  an  inver- 


ADDENDUM  11.  321 

sion  of  Serap(h),  the  people  having  transposed  the  letters  to 
disguise  the  allusion  to  the  ancient  worship  there  of  Serapis  ; 
but  the  judgment  does  not  approve  itself  on  bare  statement. 
It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark  that  Bousset  now 
surrenders  Nazareth  as  the  original  of  Nazaree,and  apparently 
also  as  a  geographic  entity.  He  looks  with  favour  on  Well- 
hausen's  second  view,  that  "  Gen  is  the  garden,"  and  that 
Gen-nesar  means  Garden  of  Nesar  or  Galilee  (though  Cheyne 
himself  corrects — after  Buhl — the  notion  that  Halevy,  to 
whom  Wellhausen  appeals,  says  Nesar  =  Galilee).  Gan  is 
certainly  garden;  but  why  think  it  present  in  Ge-nesar, 
especially  as  Wellhausen  himself  has  said  that  the  "  Ge  is 
certainly  ^^"1:1 "  (valley),  quite  unrelated  to  Gan  ?  In  fact,  it 
is  hard  to  keep  up  with  the  recent  conjectures  of  Orientalists 
concerning  Nazareth,  for  "thick  and  fast  they  come  at  last, 
And  more  and  more  and  more."  But  they  all  seem  ephemeral, 
for  they  overlook  the  central  and  vital  fact  that  Nasaree  was 
a  religious  term  or  designation  ;  it  expressed  some  religious 
peculiarity  of  the  sect  that  bore  it ;  and  when  the  multiplied 
conceits  of  linguistic  ingenuity  are  all  finally  laid  to  rest  the 
obvious  reference  will  be  seen  to  be  to  the  perfectly  familiar 
and  apparent  Hebrew  stem  nasar  (to  guard).  As  Winckler 
has  so  well  expressed  it :  '*  From  the  concept  neger  is  named 
the  religion  of  those  who  believe  on  the  *  Saviour':  Nazarene- 
Christians  and  Nosairier.  Nazareth  as  the  home  of  Jesus 
forms  only  a  confirmation  of  his  Saviour-nature,  in  the 
symbolising  play  of  words."  (See  my  note  in  Das  freie 
Wbrtj  July,  191 1,  p.  266.)  The  notions  of  Guardian  and 
Saviour  are  so  closely  akin  that  Servator  and  Salvator  are 
used  almost  interchangeably  as  applied  to  the  Jesus. 


ADDENDUM  IL 


In  view  of  the  great  importance  attaching  to  a  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  incident  of  the  Rich  One,  it  may  be  well  to 
look  at  the  recital  more  narrowly  than  has  been  done  already 


322  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

(p*  98  ff)t  even  at  the  cost  of  a  certain  amount  of  repeti- 
tion. It  is  found  in  Mark  x,  17-31  ;  Matthew  xix,  16-30; 
Luke  xviii,  18-30.  Observe  in  the  first  place  that  the  incident 
takes  place  just  as  Jesus  enters  Judsea.  The  One  comes 
running,  and  falls  down  on  his  knees  (worshipping),  and 
asks  :  "  Master,  what  good  shall  I  do  that  I  may  have  life 
everlasting?"  This  seems  to  imply  at  the  very  least  that 
the  One  knew  well  of  the  Jesus,  and  recognised  in  him  a 
superhuman  knowledge,  a  personality  that  called  for  worship. 
Now,  this  seems  nearly  impossible  on  any  probable  theory  of 
the  human  Jesus.  For  he  had  not  been  in  Judaea,  and  we 
can  hardly  believe  that  the  fame  of  his  deeds  had  so  excited 
the  imaginations  of  the  most  pious  Judseans  as  to  prompt  such 
worship  and  such  a  question.  We  observe  further  that  this 
One  is  suffering  from  no  ailment.  He  seems  to  be  in  perfect 
health,  he  runs^  whereas  the  Galileans  were  practically  all 
invalids:  "And  followed  him  many,  and  he  healed  them 
all "  (Matthew  xii,  15).  Neither  does  the  Jesus  find  any  leper 
or  demoniac  or  other  sick  person  in  Judaea,  save  only  blind 
beggar  Bartimaios  (son  of  Timaios).  Why  was  this?  Was 
not  the  salubrity  of  Galilee  quite  equal,  if  not  indeed  superior, 
to  that  of  Jud^a  ?  Why  do  all  maladies  and  miseries  vanish, 
leaving  only  health  and  wealth  behind,  as  soon  as  we  cross 
the  border  of  Jud^a?  There  seems  to  be  but  one  answer. 
The  one  disease  that,  under  a  ''  legion  "  of  names,  afflicted 
Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  was  false  worship,  irreligion.  On 
that  alone  did  the  Evangelist  have  his  eye  fixed  ;  that  alone 
was  destroyed  by  the  introduction  of  the  Jesus-cult.  But  in 
Judaea,  where  the  true  worship  prevailed,  it  was  quite  impos- 
sible there  should  be  wrought  any  miracles  in  healing  pagan 
error.  None  the  less,  there  was  blindness  in  Jewry,  whether 
among  the  Jews  proper  or  among  the  proselytes,  neither  of 
whom  recognised  the  Jesus-cult  when  it  came.  Some  of  the 
humbler  were  healed  of  this  blindness,  and  became  his 
followers.  Such  seems  to  be,  in  general,  the  meaning  of 
the  miracle  of  Jericho,  though  as  to  details  opinions  may  go 
wide  asunder. 

It  seems  hard  to  reason  with  any  one  who,  as  the  learned 
Keim  {Jesus  von  Nazara,  iii,  53),  thinks  that  **the  reasons 
preponderate  in  favour  of  the  historicity  of  this  incident," 


ADDENDUM  II.  '  323 

and  tries  to  rationalise  it  by  piling  up  lofty  phrases  about  the 
"  Woge7i  and  Wallen  of  the  religious  spirit,"  and  ''a  trust 
which,  with  its  tempestuous  onset,  could  directly  enhance  the 
vital  and  neural  energies  of  the  body  and  restore  the  diseased 
or  destroyed  power  of  vision  for  a  time  or  for  ever."  Such 
pages  as  51-53  form  very  melancholy  reading.  That  Blind 
Bartimaios  is  an  emblem  seems  sure  beyond  all  doubt. 
Witness  the  fact  that  Matthew  does  not  hesitate  to  make  two 
of  the  one,  probably  glancing  at  both  worlds,  the  Gentile  and 
the  Jewish.'  But  what  does  he  symbolise?  That  is  not  so 
clear.  The  obvious  suggestion  is  the  Jewish  world,  as  indi- 
cated by  the  circumstances  of  time  and  place,  by  the  '*  Rab- 
bouni,"  and  by  the  repeated  cry,  "  Son  of  David."  It  seems 
strange,  however,  that  the  Jew  should  be  typified  by  a  beggar, 
sitting  by  the  wayside.  More  likely,  the  Gentile  proselyte 
to  Judaism  was  in  the  writer's  mind.  He  was,  indeed,  a 
beggar,  sitting  by  the  road  that  led  to  the  true  worship,  to 
Jerusalem,  on  the  outskirts,  at  the  gateway  of  the  Holy  Land. 
Strabo  (16,  2)  speaks  of  the  Egyptian-Arabic-Phenician  amal- 
gamation in  Jericho.  Herewith  the  only  plausible  inter- 
pretation of  the  name,  as  "  Son  of  the  Unclean  "  (Bar-timai), 
corresponds  perfectly  ;  but  against  such  exposition  the  fact 
seems  to  weigh  that  "blind"  and  "unclean,"  though  each 
highly  appropriate  to  the  Gentile,  are  nevertheless  not  germane 
and  do  not  naturally  combine.  Putting  aside  the  notion  of 
certain  lexicographers,  upheld  by  Hitzig  and  adopted  by 
Keim,  that  timai—samia  —  hXxwdi^  like  the  Arabic  'aviiya^  we 
have  left  only  the  supposition  that  Timaios  is  Greek,  meaning 
highly  prized — a  name  peculiarly  fit  for  Israel.  The  Syriac 
text  reads  Timai  Bar  Timai^  and  we  may  justly  suspect  some 
text  corruption.  An  Aramaic-Greek  hybrid,  Bar-timaios,  is 
much  more  improbable  as  an  historic  than  as  an  allegoric 
name.  Origen  seems  to  have  felt  that  Timaios  must  be 
Greek,  not  Semitic,  for  he  calls  Bartimasus  "  the  eponym  of 
honour."  Wellhausen,  though  inclined  to  regard  the  name 
as  "a  patronym,"  nevertheless  subjoins  :  "Timai  may  be  an 
abbreviation  of  Timotheus,  as  Tholmai  of  Ptolemaeus."     In 

^  Precisely  as,  with  a  similar  side-g-lance  at  Jewry,  he  presents  tivo  demoniacs 
on  the  coast  of  the  Gadarenes — unwilling  to  admit  the  God  of  the  Jews  as 
quite  the  true  God? 


324  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

that  case  it  would  be  pure  Greek,  and  mean  honouring  God, 
clearly  designating  Israel.  When  Wellhausen  adds  that 
^^  save  has  here  the  simple  sense  of  make  w/iole/^  a.nd  that 
'^ follow  is  not  used  in  the  sublime  religious  meaning,"  one 
may  be  allowed  to  reserve  one's  judgment,  or  even  to  ask, 
"  Quare,  commilito?" 

Whether,  then,  blind  Timasus  Bartimaeus  typifies  the  Jew 
or  the  proselyte  may  be  left  undecided,  though  it  seems  sure 
that  he  is  the  emblem  of  the  one  or  the  other  ;  but  no  such 
uncertainty  seems  to  hang  over  the  Rich  One  of  the  earlier 
verses.^  Unless  we  err  totally  in  understanding  the  health 
of  Judaea  and  the  diseases  of  Galilee — and  error  seems  most 
unlikely — we  musl  interpret  the  Rich  One  as  the  faithful 
Israel.  With  this  the  answer  of  the  Jesus  agrees  perfectly  : 
"The  commandments  thou  knowest."  True  of  the  Jew,  and 
of  him  alone.  Similarly  his  response  :  "  All  these  I  have 
kept  from  my  youth."  So  could  speak  faithful  Israel  alone. 
We  have  already  seen  how  the  love  of  the  Jesus  is  Jehovah's 
love  for  '^Israel  when  a  child."  Now  comes  the  famous 
answer  :  ''  One  thing  thou  lackest.  Go,  whatever  thou  hast, 
sell  and  give  to  the  poor  ;  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in 
Heaven  ;  and  hither,  follow  me."  We  know  and  have  dis- 
cussed the  rest.  Observe  the  article  before  possessions 
(to,  ^{]fiaTa).  Hard,  impossibly  hard,  for  "those  that  have 
the  possessions  to  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God."  No 
reason  for  this  difficulty  is  hinted.  The  disciples  are  amazed, 
and  rightly.  If  the  Rich  (the  Jew)  cannot  enter,  who  then 
can?  All  attempts  (from  the  ordinary  standpoint)  to  ration- 
alise this  teaching  have  failed.  We  of  to-day  are  quite  as 
much  puzzled  as  the  disciples.  Failing  utterly  to  under- 
stand it,  we  reject  it  or  misinterpret  the  explanation  of  the 
ancient  copyist,  "  them  that  have  relied  upon  (the)  posses- 
sions." Yet  the  case  is  simple  enough.  The  Rich  One  is 
Israel — rich  in  promises,  privileges,  prerogatives,  in  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  the  Oracles,  in  possessions  many.  The 
poor  are  the  Gentiles,  the  despised  Lazarus.  The  all- 
conquering  peculiarity  of  the  Jesus-cult  was  its  universalism. 

*  It  seems  almost,  and  yet  perhaps  not  quite,  superfluous  to  observe  that 
there  can  be  raised  here  no  question  of  chronologic  or  topographic  order, 
since  we  are  dealing,  not  with  events,  but  with  ideas. 


ADDENDUM  II.  325 

It  admitted  Jew  and  Gentile  on  equal  terms  into  the  Kingdom. 
The  former  was  called  on  to  renounce  his  high  prerogatives, 
to  share  his  divine  privileges  with  the  latter.  Not  unnaturally, 
he  hesitated,  he  refused  ;  with  lowering  look  he  went  away 
from  the  Jesus,  deeply  grieved,  for  his  possessions  were 
precious.  It  was  in  these  that  he  placed  his  hope  ;  and  the 
reviser  of  the  text  had  a  just  insight,  and  by  no  means  "  spoiled 
everything,"  as  Wellhausen  thinks  {Ev.  Marciy  p.  87),  when 
he  added  (to  verse  24)  "  for  them  that  have  trusted  in  (the) 
possessions" — a  phrase  plainly  describing  the  Jews.  The 
stupefaction  of  the  disciples  now  appears  perfectly  natural  : 
if  the  Jews  could  not  enter  the  Kingdom,  they  for  whom  the 
Kingdom  was  primarily  intended,  the  case  seemed  desperate. 
Who  could  enter?  The  answer  of  the  Jesus  expresses  the 
abiding  faith  of  the  early  Christians  that  in  spite  of  the  almost 
unanimous  turning  away  of  Israel,  of  his  temporary  "  harden- 
ing," he  would  yet  enter  into  the  Kingdom  in  full  triumph 
and  glory.  To  men  his  salvation  might  seem  impossible, 
but  not  to  God,  with  whom  all  was  possible,  who  would 
work  some  miracle  in  his  behalf.  The  honour  of  the 
Almighty  was  pledged  for  the  exaltation  and  glorification  of 
his  Chosen  People.  In  precisely  the  same  spirit  has  the 
"  Apostle  "  (Romans  ix-xi)  poured  upon  this  supreme  paradox 
of  Christianity  the  full  flood  of  his  rabbinical  dialectic.  Surely 
the  antinomy  presented  a  problem  worthy  of  his  utmost 
powers.  His  solution  agrees  precisely  with  that  of  the 
Marcan  text.  Apparently  impossible,  the  salvation  of  the 
Jew  is  none  the  less  a  divinely  logical  necessity,  "■  for  the 
gifts  and  the  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance  "  (xi,  29). 
For  a  time,  indeed,  he  may  be  partially  hardened  ;  but  only 
"until  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in."  Then  he, 
too,  shall  enter  in  the  meridian  splendour  of  redemption  : 
"and  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,"  cries  the  Apostle  (xi,  26)  ; 
and,  wonder-struck  at  the  marvellous  inversion  of  salvation, 
he  bursts  into  the  noble  apostrophe  :  "  O  depth  of  riches  and 
wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God  !  How  unsearchable  his 
judgments  and  inexplorable  his  ways ! "  The  mental 
attitude  of  the  Evangelist  is  exactly  the  same,  but,  of  course, 
expressed  in  his  own  subtle  and  esoteric  manner.  He  beholds 
the  amazing  inversion — Gentiles  thronging  into  the  Kingdom, 


326  (I)SCARIOT(H)  =  SURRENDERER 

while  *'  the  sons  of  the  Kingdom  are  cast  forth  into  the  outer 
darkness"  (Matthew  viii,  12);  but  he  cannot  doubt  of  the 
ultimate  salvation  even  of  the  most  recalcitrant,  and  he  frames 
his  faith  in  the  aphorism,  "  But  many  shall  be — first  last  and 
last  first,"  wherein  the  allusion  to  Jew  and  Gentile  seems  too 
obvious  for  discussion. 

This  interpretation  of  the  famous  Gospel  incident  seems, 
then,  to  be  thoroughly  satisfying  in  every  detail ;  moreover, 
these  details  are  so  many  that  it  appears  in  the  last  degree 
improbable  that  a  radically  wrong  interpretation  should  fit  so 
perfectly  at  every  point.  It  would  be  well-nigh  miraculous 
if  a  mere  historical  incident,  artlessly  narrated,  should  lend 
itself  in  so  many  and  all  particulars  unforcedly  to  a  symbolic 
interpretation.  The  marks  of  design  are  too  many  and  too 
obvious.  On  the  other  hand,  to  understand  this  account 
historically  is  very  difficult,  if  not  downright  impossible. 
Who  can  believe  that  a  Rich  One  would  meet  the  stranger 
Jesus  as  he  started  towards  Jerusalem,  would  run  forward, 
fall  upon  his  knees  and  worship,  and  ask,  "  What  shall  I  do 
to  inherit  everlasting  life?"  Or  that  the  Jesus  would  require 
that  he  should  sell  all  his  possessions  and  give  them  to  the 
poor?  What  good  could  such  folly  accomplish?  Or  that 
the  Jesus  would  pronounce  it  impossible  for  any  rich  man  to 
enter  the  Kingdom  save  by  a  miracle?  History  has  not 
verified,  but  has  flatly  and  repeatedly  and  continually  con- 
tradicted, such  a  dictum  in  every  age  and  in  every  clime. 
And  what  worthy  or  adequate  meaning  can  be  given  to  First 
and  Last,  inverted  into  Last  and  First,  save  that  of  Jew  and 
Gentile?     Surely  not  that  of  Loisy  {Les  Evan.  Syn,^  ii,  20). 

We  must,  then,  regard  the  symbolic  exposition  of  this 
incident  as  possessing  a  degree  of  probability  as  high  as  the 
nature  of  such  matters  admits  ;  in  other  words,  as  virtually 
certain.  This  result  is  not  only  important  and  luminous  in 
itself,  but  its  light  is  reflected  over  the  whole  body  of  the 
Gospel.  It  shows  by  a  striking  example  how  the  Evangelist 
thought  as  he  wrote,  how  he  wished  his  readers  to  under- 
stand him.  Once  we  have  looked  steadily  into  the  depths  of 
the  mind  of  Mark,  the  enigma  of  the  New  Testament  becomes 
an  open  secret. 


POSTSCRIPT 


During  the  passage  of  this  work  into  print,  a  passage  made 
slow  by  the  tedium  of  correcting  proofs  across  an  ocean  and 
a  continent,  there  have  appeared  a  number  of  publications 
treating  directly  or  indirectly  of  Ecce  Deus  (the  original 
German  edition  of  this  book,  published,  with  eye  single  to 
the  interests  of  freedom  and  culture,  by  Herr  Eugen 
Diederichs,  of  Jena),  some  of  which,  in  order  that  the  reader 
may  be  put  au  courant  with  the  discussion,  should  be  noticed 
in  this  volume.  Here  is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  elaborate 
consideration  of  replies  to  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus ^  such  as 
Schwen's  recent  "  Replik  an  W.  B.  Smith  "  (in  Hilgenfeld's 
Zeitschrift  filr  wissenschaftliche  Theologie) ^^  sinco.  the  special 
matters  therein  set  forth  are  in  the  main  untouched  in  the 
present  work.  It  seems  proper,  however,  to  call  attention  to 
The  Historicity  of  Jesus ^  by  Professor  Shirley  Jackson  Case, 
of  the  University  of  Chicago.  Elsewhere''  I  review  the  book 
at  some  length,  having  studied  it  with  much  satisfaction. 
What  concerns  us  here  is  that  its  author,  though  knowing 
Ecce  Deus  and  citing  it  repeatedly,  has  made  no  attempt 
whatever  to  answer  it,  to  rebut  the  evidence  it  brings  forward 
against  the  "  historicity  "  in  question.  The  reader  may  find 
his  own  explanation  of  such  an  omission  in  a  work  professing 
to  be  a  ''complete  and  unprejudiced  statement,"  wherein  ''no 
phase  of  any  consequence  in  the  history  or  in  the  present 
status  of  the  problem  is  ignored."  The  only  logical  con- 
clusion would  be  that  Professor  Case  regards  the  present 
work  as  of  no  "  consequence  " — an  opinion  that  might  interest 

^  However,  owe.  amendment  is  needed  in  Schwen's  estimate  of  the  general 
situation  :  "  It  is  the  question  of  a  completely  new  interpretation  of  religious 
history  in  the  time  of  the  Roman  Emperors,  of  the  overthrow  both  of  liberal 
and  of  conservative  Christianity."  Plainly  Schwen  means  theology,  or 
interpretation  of  "  Christianity."  Christianity  itself,  true,  proper,  primitive, 
and  militant,  suffers  no  violence  in  these  volumes. 

2  In  a  forthcoming  number  of  the  Ope7i  Court. 

327 


328  POSTSCRIPT 

by  its  uniqueness  and  by  reminding  one  of  the  prediction  of 
Noah's  neighbours,  that  it  would  be  only  a  passing  shower. 
Meanwhile  the  gravity  of  considerations  ignored  by  the 
Chicagoan  is  attested  not  only  in  numerous  reviews,  but 
still  more  in  the  ominous  appearance  of  such  articles  as 
Macintosh's  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology  (191 1, 
pp.  362-372),  **  Is  Belief  in  the  Historicity  of  Jesus  Indis- 
pensable to  Christian  Faith  ?  "  and  of  similar  discussions  by 
such  as  Bousset,  Troeltsch,  Hermann.  In  spite  of  all 
protestations,  the  meaning  of  such  scriptures  seems  quite 
unmistakable.  Critics  are  inquiring  if  it  be  '^  indispensable  " 
only  because  they  begin  to  suspect  it  may  prove  indefensible. 
They  are  preparing  cautiously,  not  indeed  to  surrender — oh, 
no  !  perish  the  thought,  never  for  an  instant  could  that  be 
dreamed  of — but  merely  to  evacuate  overnight  the  citadel 
hitherto  deemed  impregnable.  How  long  before  some  forget 
in  their  new  surroundings  that  imperial  palace  whence  they 
came,  and  even  that  they  were  ever  there  i* 

The  elaborate  article  by  Meyboom  in  the  Theologisch 
Tijdschrift  breathes  such  a  spirit  of  generous  appreciation 
that  it  might  very  properly  be  commended  to  the  reader 
without  comment.  It  may  be  well,  however,  to  observe  that 
its  chief  complaint,  that  against  the  broad  generality  and 
even  vagueness  of  certain  contentions,  seems  to  strike  a 
failing  that  leans  to  virtue's  side.  Avowedly  the  book 
sketches  only  the  outlines  ;  it  declares  explicitly  that  many 
details  must  yet  wait  long  to  be  filled  in.  This  lies  in  the 
nature  of  the  case.  Where  strictly  historic  evidence  is  so 
scanty,  where  the  oldest  documents  were  hidden  ''sayings," 
where  the  facts  were  so  early  and  so  studiously  concealed, 
where  they  were  systematically  transmuted  often  beyond 
recognition  in  the  utterly  interested  representations  of  ex 
parte  reporters,  it  were  miraculous  if  at  first  much  more  than 
general  indications  were  possible.  It  is  only  the  drift  of  the 
stars  in  their  courses  that  we  may  hope  to  recognise.  In  a 
movement  that  stretched  itself  through  nearly  three  centuries, 
that  spread  itself  over  well-nigh  the  whole  circum-Mediter- 
ranean  region,  we  must  often  be  content  with  a  "somewhere" 
and  a  "somewhen,"  and  any  present  attempt  at  higher 
precision  may  be  deprecated.     Nor  is  such  precision  a  real 


POSTSCRIPT  329 

desideratum.  The  one  important  "question  of  the  day"  is 
that  of  the  "historicity,"  the  pure  humanity,  of  the  Jesus. 
The  details  though  not  indeed  absolutely,  are  yet  relatively, 
unimportant.  Once  the  pure  divinity,  the  non-humanity, 
of  the  Jesus  clearly  made  out,  all  the  other  things  in  their 
time  and  their  turn  will  be  added.  With  the  new  theory  of 
Christian  origins  it  fares  quite  as  with  other  new  theories 
in  historical  and  even  in  physical  science.  In  grounding 
the  general  doctrine  of  descent  with  modification,  it  is  only 
the  very  broad  and  vague  propositions  that  are  at  first  recom- 
mended :  as  that  in  some  way  all  living  organisms  are 
directly  derived  from  ancestors,  and  these  from  pre-ancestors, 
and  so  on  in  unbroken  order  back  indefinitely.  But  in  what 
way  derived — that  is  another  question.  To  say  "  By  Natural 
Selection  "  was,  and  still  is,  premature.  As  over  against  the 
elder  hypothesis  of  special  creations,  it  is  indifferent  how  they 
may  have  been  derived,  how  the  modifications  may  have 
been  brought  about,  though  in  other  regards  it  may  be 
extremely  important. 

Exactly  similar  is  the  present  case  of  New  Testament 
theory.  The  general  outlines  are  already  clear :  there  is  no 
longer  any  good  reason  to  maintain  the  liberal  dogma  of  the 
purely  human  Jesus  ;  there  is  the  amplest  reason  to  fold  it  up 
and  lay  it  aside  for  ever,  to  adopt  the  formula  of  Origen, 
"The  God  Jesus"  (C  Cels,  vi,  66).  But  a  score  of  questions 
remain  yet,  and  may  long  remain,  unsettled.  Gradually, 
reluctantly,  they  will  yield  up  their  answers  ;  in  no  case  will 
they  shake  the  fundamental  results  now  attained.  Said 
Lincoln  at  the  famous  conference  with  Davis  :  "  Let  me  write 
the  first  sentence,  ^  The  Union  shall  be  maintained,'  and  you 
may  write  all  the  rest."  The  sense  in  which  these  subsidiary 
questions  may  be  answered  cannot  disturb  the  movement 
of  our  thought  on  these  matters,  nor  greatly  modify  the 
significance  of  the  results  now  attained — for  the  problems 
that  confront  us  in  the  religion,  the  worship,  the  church,  the 
society,  the  civilisation  of  to-day. 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  find  in  the  writings  of  historicists 
obscure  allusions  to  convincing  arguments  for  the  historicity, 
which,  however,  they  yet  hold  in  reserve.  It  seems  a  pity 
that  anyone  should  thus  hide  his  light  under  a  bushel.     In 


330  POSTSCRIPT 

the  Theologische  Revue ^  in  adjudging  Ecce  Deus^  the 
temperate  Catholic  Kiefl  generously  admits,  "The  book  is, 
without  doubt,  geistvoll  geschriehen ";  but  he  holds  that, 
*'  however  pointed  the  author's  critique  and  manifoldly- 
correct  {treffend)^  yet  the  proof  of  his  counter-hypothesis  is 
just  as  defective."  He  protests  against  **  shoreless  alle- 
gorising," but  assigns  no  reasons,  and  finds  the  main  fault 
to  lie  in  giving  so  much  attention  to  Schmiedel's  Pillars 
while  "rather  ignoring  other  proofs."  This  sounds  strange 
in  view  of  the  detailed  treatment  of  the  arguments  from 
personality,  and  the  Pauline  Witness,  and  some  others. 
The  facts  in  the  case  may  be  understood  easily.  Schmiedel 
himself  has  openly  declared  (p.  17,  quoted  supra^  p.  33)  there 
are  no  other  really  cogent  arguments  than  those  derived 
from  these  same  or  similar  passages.  Besides,  these 
"  pillars "  are  tangible,  palpable,  whereas  the  supposed 
"  other  proofs  "  yet  wait  for  distinct  formulation. 

Thus  Wendland  would  rest  his  case  on  the  "  Aramaic 
foundation  of  the  Synoptics  and  the  existence  of  a  mission 
independent  of  Paul."  Now,  here  are  two  arguments  declared 
to  be  "  sufficient."  But  how  so ?  Each  of  them  stands  on  one 
leg  only — an  unsteady  posture  for  a  syllogism.  To  make  out 
any  semblance  of  reasoning  we  must  supply  each  with  a  help- 
meet, a  major  premise.  What  shall  it  be  ?  Wendland  gives 
no  hint.  The  like  holds  of  much  ostensible  argumentation 
for  the  historicity.  When  the  major  is  supplied,  it  will  be 
found  to  be  either  false  or  unrelated  to  the  conclusion.  Similar 
examples  might  be  cited.  It  is  hardly  fair  to  expect  your 
opponent  to  frame  your  premises  as  well  as  to  expose  your 
fallacies.  When  these  mysterious  "  other  proofs  "  ^  are 
formulated  as  clearly  and  logically  as  the  "pillar-proofs," 
then  will  they  receive  quite  as  careful  consideration — and,  it 
may  be  predicted,  with  quite  similar  results. 

Such  being  the  general  reticence  of  the  spokesmen  of 
Historicism,  it  is  gratifying  to  find  in  Case's  book  (p.  269)  a 
summary  of  pro-historical  arguments,  more  complete  than  is 
elsewhere  found  in  the  same  compass.     He  says  : — 

*  Hereby  we  are  reminded  of  the  barrister  who  declared  :  "  And  now,  Your 
Honour,  if  this  argument  be  rejected  as  invalid,  I  have  another  that  is  equally 
conclusive." 


POSTSCRIPT  331 

[i]  The  New  Testament  data  are  perfectly  clear  in  their  testimony 
to  the  reality  of  Jesus's  earthly  career,  [2]  and  they  come  from  a  time 
when  the  possibility  that  the  early  framers  of  tradition  should  have 
been  deceived  upon  this  point  is  out  of  the  question.  [3]  Not  only 
does  Paul  make  the  historical  personality  of  Jesus  a  necessary 
preliminary  to  his  gospel,  [4]  but  the  whole  situation  in  which  Paul 
moves  shovv^s  a  historical  background  in  which  memory  of  this 
individual  is  central.  [5]  The  earliest  phases  of  Gospel  tradition 
have  their  roots  in  Palestinian  soil,  [6]  and  reach  back  to  the  period 
when  personal  associates  of  Jesus  were  still  living  ;  [7]  while  primitive 
Christology  shows  distinct  traces  of  Jesus,  the  man  of  Galilee,  behind 
its  faith  in  the  heavenly  Christ.  [8]  The  disciples'  personal  memory 
of  this  Jesus  of  real  life  is  also  the  fountain  from  which  the  peculiarly 
forceful  type  of  the  new  community's  vitality  takes  its  start. 

By  this  statement  of  long-desiderated  ^' other  proofs," 
which  we  have  taken  the  liberty  to  separate  and  numerate  for 
easy  reference,  Professor  Case  has  made  the  public  greatly 
his  debtor.     A  few  observations  may  be  permitted. 

A.  It  seems  noteworthy  that  the  Pillars  shine  by  their 
absence  only.  Professor  Case  would  seem  to  regard  them 
almost  as  lightly  as  Schmiedel  regards  all  Case's  "  other 
evidences."  This  seems  very  remarkable,  for  Schmiedel  is 
by  no  means  alone  in  pinning  his  faith  to  the  Pillars. 

B.  The  favourite  inference  from  the  unique,  incomparable, 
and  wholly  uninventible  personality  is  likewise  slurred,  if  not, 
indeed,  entirely  omitted.  This  seems  even  more  remarkable 
still,  for  this  has  undoubtedly  hitherto  been  the  trump  argu- 
ment of  many  historicists. 

(i)  The  assertion  that  ''the  New  Testament  data  are 
perfectly  clear,  etc.,"  ignores  both  the  facts  in  the  case  and 
the  whole  symbolic  interpretation  set  forth  in  £cce  Deus.  If 
this  interpretation  be  measurably  correct,  then  these  ''  data  " 
would  seem  to  be  *'  perfectly  clear  in  their  testimony  "  against 
the  historicity  in  question.  Unless  this  interpretation  be 
shown  to  be  erroneous,  this  leading  argument  in  the  list 
must  fall  to  the  ground  ;  and  what  is  said  in  (2)  about  the 
"  framers  of  tradition  "  would  appear  to  lose  all  its  meaning. 

(3)  The  statement  concerning  Paul  is  scarcely  correct ;  it 
is  rather  the  very  reverse  of  the  truth.  See  supra^  146  j^.,  and 
Schlager's  article  already  cited. 

(4)  Professor  Case  would  seem  to  be  Hegelian,  and  to 
uphold  the  identity  of  opposites. 


332  POSTSCRIPT 

(5)  Like  Wendland's,  the  argument  that  tradition  "  roots  in 
Palestinian  soil "  tries  to  stand  on  one  leg,  most  awkwardly. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  this 
Christian  movement  originated  in  Palestine  or  in  any  other 
one  place.  The  pictorial  representation  in  the  Gospels  is 
staged  as  in  Palestine,  and  for  the  reason  stated  in  Matthew 
iv,  15,  16 — to  fulfil  the  prophecy  about  the  dawn  of  a  great 
light  on  **  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles."  Nearly  all  the  topical 
references  of  the  Gospels  are  derivable  directly  or  indirectly 
from  this  motifs  and  it  is  noteworthy  how  much  of  the 
evangelic  picture  remains  in  the  air  without  a  local  habita- 
tion, and  sometimes  without  a  name.  The  Judasan  ministry 
is  an  afterthought — not  present  in  the  Logoi-source  (Q),  as 
Harnack  now  concedes — and  is  a  highly  elaborate  reflection 
from  the  mirror  of  prophecy,  sacred  and  profane. 

(6)  '*  When  personal  associates  of  Jesus  were  still  living  " 
assumes  everything  in  dispute,  as  indeed  is  elsewhere  done  in 
Professor  Case's  book. 

(7)  Herein  may  lie  a  modest  allusion  to  the  Pillars  ;  in 
any  case,  their  downfall  carries  Case's  assertion  along 
with  it. 

(8)  The  closing  sentence  about  "  personal  memory  "  may 
be  a  rather  grudging  concession  to  the  old  personality 
argument,  and  is  quite  too  vague  to  form  any  basis  of 
discussion.  That  the  absence  of  any  such  "  personal  memory" 
is  a  distinctive  mark  of  the  early  preaching  has  been  clearly 
set  forth  in  this  volume.  It  is  enough  for  the  reader  to 
remember  that  Paul's  was  the  most  "  peculiarly  forceful  type," 
that  he  "laboured  more  abundantly  than  they  all,"  and  that 
he  admittedly  had  no  such '*  personal  memory."  Nor  will 
the  reader  fail  to  note  the  vagueness  that  marks  all  the  con- 
siderations advanced  in  the  passage  quoted. 

In  view  of  all  the  foregoing,  it  seems  doubtful  whether 
historicists  in  general  will  thank  the  Chicagoan  for  his  state- 
ment of  the  case. 

A  single  observation  touching  the  favourite  mode  of 
refutation  in  vogue  with  historicists,  the  argument  by  silence. 
It  is,  perhaps,  not  strange  that  it  has  suggested  to  able 
German  reviewers  a  counter-conclusion /ro;w  silence.  Fullest 
hearts  may  indeed  be  slow  to  speak,  but  not  always  fullest 


POSTSCRIPT  333 

heads.  The  man  who  had  not  a  wedding  garment  on  seems 
to  have  maintained  a  most  dignified  and  impressive  silence  ; 
nevertheless . 

Having  already  made  ample  answer  (in  Auseinander- 
setzung  mil  Weinel  and  in  the  Preface  to  the  second  edition 
of  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus)  to  the  full  blast  of  German 
bugles,  one  feels  under  little  obligation  to  reply  to  ''  the 
horns  of  elfland,  faintly  blowing  "  in  Bacon's  contribution  to 
the  Hibbert  Journal  QuXy J  191 1)*  They  may,  however,  serve 
one  useful  purpose — to  point  a  needed  remark  upon  the  type 
of  reasoning  to  be  employed  in  such  discussions.  It  would 
seem  that  even  a  babe  in  logic  might  grasp  the  distinction 
between  a  chain  and  a  warp,  between  a  serial  and  a  parallel 
arrangement  of  proofs.  In  mathematics  the  first  order 
prevails  ;  the  conclusion  hangs  by  a  single  thread.  If  this 
break,  it  falls  to  the  ground.  Enough  to  expose  a  single 
error  in  the  sorites  ;  the  whole  deduction  is  thereby  invali- 
dated— the  chain  is  no  stronger  than  its  weakest  link.  Far 
otherwise  in  history,  in  life,  where  it  is  the  second  order  that 
holds.  The  evidences  are  arranged  side  by  side,  like  threads 
in  a  loom.  It  is  their  combined  strength  that  supports  the 
conclusion.  The  warp  is  far  stronger  than  even  its  strongest 
strand.  We  speak  of  the  evidence  as  ** cumulative,"  of  the 
"consilience  of  results,"  of  the  convergence  of  indications. 
Manifestly,  to  refute  such  argumentation  it  were  not  nearly 
enough  to  detect  weak  threads  in  the  warp  and  grave  uncer- 
tainty in  various  indicia.  Nay,  it  must  be  shown  that  none 
of  the  filaments  hold,  that  they  all  snap  both  severally  and 
collectively,  that  all  the  concurrent  indications  both  singly 
and  together  mislead. 

The  just  critic  of  this  book  or  of  its  predecessor  not  only 
will  but  must  appraise  it  where  it  is  most,  and  not  merely 
where  it  is  least,  strong.  Even  if  the  evidence  were  incon- 
clusive at  a  dozen  points,  it  might  still  be  conclusive  at  some 
others,  and  that  would  be  enough  ;  yea,  it  might  be  indecisive 
at  every  point  considered  singly,  and  yet  decisive  (with  very 
high  probability)  when  all  were  considered  together.  It  is 
the  whole  body  of  facts  and  arguments  adduced  that  must 
finally  sway  the  mind.  When,  therefore,  critics  rest  content 
with  essaying  to  show  some  want  of  stringency  in  the  proofs 


334  POSTSCRIPT 

here  and  there,  but  make  no  attempt  to  invalidate  the  whole 
mutually  independent  but  mutually  corroborative  array  of 
indications/  they  would  appear  to  betray  a  peculiar  conception 
of  the  nature  of  evidence,  and  to  suggest  the  query  whether 
Hilbert's,  Peano's,  and  Russell's  be  the  only  New  Logics. 

The  foregoing  is  certainly  an  old  story  ;  and  yet  it  must 
be  kept  ever  new,  for  it  is  persistently  forgotten,  e.g,  even  by 
Windisch  {Theol.  Rundschau,  1912,  pp.  114^.),  who,  while 
discreetly  generous  in  judging  Ecce  Deus^  yet  finds  it 
**  fragmentary,  and  therefore  unsatisfying,"  "a  series  of 
unconnected  essays,"  and  urgently  calls  for  "  no  more 
fragmentary  sketches,  but  connected,  rounded-off  presenta- 
tions." All  this,  on  which  Windisch  lays  such  especial 
stress,  seems  indeed  only  half-bad.  It  might  be  worse. 
Some  books  are  very  smoothly  "rounded-off,"  and  yet  do 
not  satisfy.  All  books,  in  fact,  have  the  defects  of  their 
qualities  ;  and  this  lack  of  artistic  unity  has  been  openly 
declared  by  the  author.  The  reader  must  see  that  "  a  com- 
pletely new  orientation  "  (Schwen)  cannot  be  presented  in  the 
**  rounded-off  "  form  desired.  If  the  author  should  wait  until 
such  a  "  presentation  "  became  possible,  his  friends  the  enemy 
would  exultingly  insist  on  passing  to  the  order  of  the  day. 
New  evidence  is  offering  itself  daily,  new  aspects  are 
disclosing  themselves  constantly,  new  perspectives  opening 
up  on  every  hand.  Doubtless  many  years  must  elapse  before 
the  readjustment  and  realignment  can  be  complete.^ 

Meantime  the  evidences,  though  avowedly  "  fragmentary," 
are  not  "therefore  unsatisfying."  The  evidence  for  scientific 
doctrines  does  often  satisfy  in  spite  of  being  very  fragmentary, 
for  it  attests  with  a  sufficiently  high  degree  of  probability.  In 
fact,  it  is  well  known  that  our  knowledge  is  patchwork.  But 
when    Windisch   speaks   of  "unconnected  essays"  he  goes 

*  Herewith  it  is  far  from  hinted  that  even  in  minute  details  such  critics 
have  prevailed  thus  far  at  any  sing-le  point  of  attack.  On  the  contrary,  their 
signal  and  universal  failure  seems  to  be  variously  admitted  in  their  own  ranks, 
as  already  indicated  at  several  points  in  this  volume  ;  nay  more,  to  judge  by 
the  temper  displayed  too  often,  it  must  be  an  open  secret  to  these  critics 
themselves  ;  for  it  is  a  sound  ethical  maxim  in  law,  and  surely  much  more  so 
in  theology,  to  revile  only  the  opponent  whom  you  cannot  refute. 

^  If  Windisch  thinks  the  publication  of  such  essays  premature,  then  he  is 
at  variance  with  Pfleiderer  and  with  other  such  masters,  at  whose  urgence  it 
was  begun. 


POSTSCRIPT  335 

far  astray.  As  well  describe  the  meridians  of  longitude  as 
"unconnected" — they  hang  together  tightly  at  the  poles. 
So  the  numerous  lines  of  proof  in  this  book  are,  indeed, 
independent — herein  lies  their  logical  worth  :  an  error  in 
one  does  not  involve  an  error  in  any  other — they  must  all  be 
refuted  simultaneously,  for  even  if  all  failed  but  one,  and  that 
did  not  fail,  the  07ie  conclusion  would  still  be  reached  and 
established  ;  but  they  are  not  unconnected,  for  they  all 
converge  upon  the  same  conclusion,  which  holds  them  all 
together  in  unity.  The  complaint  of  Windisch  lies,  then, 
against  an  esthetic  fault — the  condition  of  a  logical  merit. 
However,  as  the  days  glide  by,  the  independent  arguments 
will  become  each  for  itself  a  more  "  rounded-oif  "  whole,  and 
some  subsequent  volume  may  appeal  more  powerfully  to 
Windisch's  artistic  sense.  Meanwhile,  this  mutual  indepen- 
dence by  no  means  absolves  opponents  from  the  obligation  of 
answer ;  on  the  contrary,  it  piles  up  such  obligation  higher. 

A  reviewer  must  be  allowed  to  decide  ex  cathedra  and 
without  argument.  Sometimes,  however,  Windisch  does 
assign  reasons,  as  when  he  is  horrified  at  the  statement  that 
Hebrews  does  not  make  the  faintest  allusion  to  the  Gospel 
delineation,  and  cites  Hebrews  v,  7,  in  refutation.  The 
passage  was  in  the  mind  of  the  author,  as  appears  from  the 
language  used  (p.  92),  but  it  does  not  contain  the  allusion 
imagined.  Of  course,  most  commentators  refer  it  to  Geth- 
semane  ;  but  even  the  conservative  Kostlin,  who  was  certainly 
guiltless  of  any  foreboding  of  recent  criticism,  could  find  no 
such  reference.  The  representation  does  certainly  agree  in 
some  measure  with  the  Gospel  account — an  account,  by  the 
way,  that  would  do  grave  dishonour  to  any  courageous  Tuan^ 
who  would  certainly  not  "  for  his  godly  fear  of  death  "  "  pray 
and  plead  with  tears  and  mighty  cry  for  deliverance  from 
death,"  which  millions  of  ordinary  mortals  have  met  without 
a  blush.  The  passage  is  an  attempt,  perhaps  not  quite  happy 
according  to  our  standards,  to  poetise,  or  rather  to  pathetise 
(most  naturally^),  the  self-sacrifice  of  the  great  High  Priest, 
the  Dying  God,  a  many-coloured  thread  that  ran  all  through 
the  web  of  ancient  consciousness.     There  is  no  evidence  at  all 

^  See  p.  296  supra. 


336  POSTSCRIPT 

that  it  is  based  on  Luke  or  on  any  other  Gospel.  In  fact, 
the  indications  point  the  other  way.  It  would  be  far  more 
likely  for  the  Gospels  to  dramatise  the  verse  in  Hebrews, 
or  still  more  probably  its  original.  It  is  needless  to  elaborate, 
nor  do  we  raise  here  any  critical  question  about  these  four 
verses  (7-10),  though  such  a  one  as  Windisch  must  perceive 
that  a  serious  question  may  be  raised  ;  but  it  seems  strange 
that  anyone  can  read  the  whole  of  this  Epistle  at  a  single 
sitting  without  being  struck  by  its  wide  remove  from  the 
modern  liberal,  and  even  from  the  ancient  evangelic, 
conception. 

The  surprise  of  Windisch  that  so  little  note  is  made  of 
Justin  Martyr's  witness  to  the  Gospel  story  is  scarcely 
warranted  ;  for  the  explanation  lay  before  him  in  Ecce  Deus, 
The  witness  need  not  be  denied ;  it  is  merely  worthless,  being 
vitiated  by  the  Martyr's  bizarre  conception  of  (Gospel)  history 
as  a  fulfilment  and  reflection  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  and 
scripture.  Such  a  theorist  would  not  hesitate  to  declare  that 
so-and-so  had  happened,  and  had  been  recorded  in  Memoirs 
of  the  Apostles^  if  only  he  thought  he  had  found  its  type 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Does  not  even  Chrysostom  teach 
explicitly  that  prophecy  must  over-ride  even  the  historic  facts 
themselves?  And  did  not  Tertullian  write:  ''And  buried, 
he  rose  again;  it  is  certain,  because  it  is  impossible"?^ 
The  modern  critical  mind  is  no  measuring  rod  for  the  early 
Christian. 

Windisch  thinks  that  to  "propagate  monotheism  in  the 
form  of  a  Jesus-cult  is  to  cast  out  the  devil  through 
Beelzebub."  Exactly  so  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  seem  to 
have  thought  (Mark  iii,  22),  but  not  so  the  proto-Christians. 
He  imagines  a  contradiction  between  the  worship  of  the 
pre-Christian  Jesus  and  the  doctrine  that  proto-Christianity 
was  an  aggressive  monotheism.  But  wherein  does  it  lie? 
He  neglects  to  state.  Meanwhile,  does  not  even  Deissmann 
delight  in  the  phrase,  "the  monotheistic  cult  of  Jesus"? 
Windisch's  sense  of  contrast  might  appear  to  be  patho- 
logically acute. 


*  "  Et  sepultus  resurrexit ;    certum  est,  quia  impossibile  est "  (De  Came 
Christi,  v). 


POSTSCRIPT  337 

The  argument  from  "The  Didactic  Element"  he  con- 
denses thus:  "Jesus  said  something  else  than  Cicero  and 
Aristotle,  etc.;  therefore  Jesus  is  no  historic  personality." 
This  summary,  he  admits,  is  "grob  gesagt";  verily!  so 
inept,  indeed,  that  one  suspects  there  may  be  some  misprint, 
some  mistake  not  of  Windisch,  but  of  the  devil.  The  real 
argument  is  that  the  "  Sayings  "  bear  no  witness  to  a  unique, 
definable,  and  uninventible  personality,  because  even  the 
most  distinctive  are  not  original,  but  are  adaptations  of  the 
winged  words  of  ancient  wisdom  ;  since  one  might  naturally 
look  for  some  individual  impress  on  the  real  sayings  of  a 
marvellous  human  teacher,  its  absence  bears  witness  against 
the  historicity  in  question.  This  reasoning  is  not  hard  to 
understand  ;  why  does  Windisch  prefer  to  caricature  rather 
than  to  answer  it? 

Another  pupil  of  Schmiedel's  has  come  bravely  to  the 
rescue  of  the  Pillars,  which,  it  is  admitted,  "  are  powerfully 
assailed,"  by  adding,  like  Neumann,  to  their  number  (Meltzer, 
"  Zum  Ausbau  von  Schmiedels  Grundsaulen  " — Prot 
Monatsh.^  191  ij  H.12,  461-476).  His  additions  outnumber 
the  first  array,  being  about  a  dozen  ;  and  some  of  them, 
which  had  long  ago  occurred  to  the  present  writer,  deserve 
notice,  though  neither  singly  nor  collectively  can  they  sustain 
the  burden  laid  upon  them.  Windisch  admits  that  Meltzer's 
collection  "must  be  sifted,"  nor  will  the  very  finest  sieve 
retain  aught  worth  saying.  Still  this  second  vintage  of 
Zurich,  only  in  less  degree  than  the  first  (for  "  the  old  is 
better "),  calls  for  attention,  as  being  of  all  "  so-called " 
evidences  the  least  intangible.  At  the  start,  however,  it  is 
keenly  interesting  to  note  that  Windisch  himself  now 
surrenders  five  of  the  original  nine  passages  (Mark  xiii,  32  ; 
XV,  34  ;  Matthew  xi,  5  ;  xii,  32  ;  xvi,  5-12)  as  "not  convinc- 
ing"; only  Mark  iii,  21  ;  x,  18;  viii,  12;  vi,  5,  would  he 
still  "let  count."  When  such  a  pillar  as  the  cry  on  the 
cross  (Mark  xv,  34)  is  abandoned  reluctantly  as  "  not  able 
to  bear "  {nicht  tragf'dhig)^  one's  interest  and  confidence  in 
pillars  is  "  nigh  unto  vanishing  away." 

Meltzer's  second  row  of  columns  stands  thus  : — Mark  x, 
40=: Matthew  xx,  23  ;  Mark  xiv,  33= Matthew  xxvi,  37  ; 
Matthew  xvi,  28;  xxiv,  30,  34;  xi,  20-24=Luke   x,  12-18; 

z 


338  POSTSCRIPT 

Matthew  XV,  22-28  ;  xi,  19  ;  Mark  iii,  22  ;  ii,  7  ;  xii,  35-37  ;  v, 
39  ;  Matthew  v,  9,  45  ;  Mark  viii,  33  ;  Luke  ix,  54  ff.  Add 
the  betrayal  of  Judas,  denial  of  Peter,  stupidity  of  disciples, 
depreciation  of  disciples,  flight  of  disciples.  Our  first  obser- 
vation is  that  only  half  are  found  in  Mark.  Now,  of  the 
original  nine,  the  four  that  still  maintain  themselves  (even  in 
the  judgment  of  Windisch)  are  all  in  Mark  ;  all  not  in  Mark 
are  now  rejected.  It  is  doubly  unlikely,  then,  that  any  of 
this  new  colonnade  not  found  in  Mark  will  support  themselves 
even  in  the  minds  of  liberal  critics. 

These  six  that  are  in  Mark,  since  it  is  not  possible  to 
examine  all  minutely  now  and  here,  we  may  judge  not  by  the 
foot,  but  by  the  head,  for  the  chief  is  this  :  Of  the  seats  at 
right  and  at  left  hand  in  the  kingdom  Jesus  says :  "  This  is 
not  mine  to  give,  but  for  others  it  is  made  ready  "  (Mark  x, 
40,  Burkitt's  translation).  On  its  face  the  whole  story  seems 
to  be  a  comparatively  late  invention,  with  what  motive  it  is 
not  easy  to  say — possibly  as  a  setting  for  the  great  saying 
about  humility  (Mark  x,  43-45)  ?  We  have  no  reason  to 
believe  that  even  the  obscure  Sinaitic  form — given  above — is 
the  original,  nor  can  anyone  say  what  the  original  was  ; 
considerable  change  took  place  even  in  passing  to  Matthew. 
But,  even  as  it  now  stands,  it  is  far  from  clear  that  a 
worshipper  of  "the  god  Jesus"  might  not  have  written  it. 
For  such  a  one  might,  and  did,  distinguish  his  Saviour-God 
from  the  God  Most  High,  as  is  done  in  Hebrews  and  else- 
where. Thus  the  Apostle  explicitly  affirms  that  the  Son 
must  reign  as  God  for  a  certain  time,  and  then  become  himself 
subject  to  the  Father  (i  Corinthians  xv,  24-28).  It  is  idle 
to  ask.  How  can  these  things  be?  Few  or  none  of  us  can 
understand  them  ;  but  how  many  can  understand  the  higher 
spaces  or  the  relativity  of  space  and  time?  It  is  enough 
that  the  worshippers  of  "  the  God  Jesus  "  did  actually  preach 
and  teach  a  host  of  such  un-unified  and  semi-contradictory 
doctrines  "■  concerning  the  Jesus."  Such  inconsistencies 
have,  indeed,  infected  theology  in  all  ages,  the  present  not 
excepted.  Homer  did  not  hesitate  to  represent  even  the 
Father  of  the  gods  as  yielding  to  Fate,  and  bound  by  oath 
*'not  to  be  loosed  by  any  god."  Says  the  oracle  {Herod. ^  i, 
91) :  "  The  foredoomed  Fate  it  is  impossible  to  escape,  even 


POSTSCRIPT  339 

for  a  god."  Compare  also  Hebrews  vi,  17,  18.  It  seems 
strange  that  Meltzer  should  lean  on  such  a  pillar.  How  easy 
it  was  for  the  ancient,  even  the  Judaic,  mind  to  distinguish 
between  God  very  high  and  God  Most  High,  is  clearly  seen 
in  the  strange  doctrine  of  Metatron  so  conspicuous  in 
Hebrew  writings,  who  is  purely  divine,  who  discharges  the 
divinest  functions,  who  even  bears  the  ineffable  name  of  God, 
and  yet  must  not  be  worshipped  being  not  quite  God 
Himself.^ 

Surely  nothing  more  need  be  said  about  the  "■  Betrayal," 
and  the  reader  may  safely  be  left  with  the  other  mentioned 
misdoings  of  the  disciples.  Even  if  unable  to  comprehend  a 
certain  incident  fully,  we  should  be  irrational  to  adopt  the 
hypothesis  of  Meltzer  ;  on  this  point  Windisch  is  in  at  least 
partial  accord  with  the  present  writer,  of  whom  he  says  (in 
reviewing  Ecce  Deus)  ;  "  With  acumen  he  shows,  first  of  all, 
that  Schmiedel  in  his  propositions  proves  the  impossible  ; 
what  is  for  us  a  contradiction  need  by  no  means  have  been 
felt  as  such  by  the  Evangelists."  Only  on  the  Denial  need 
we  pause  to  say  that  it  seems  to  be  one  of  the  most  pro- 
foundly significant  stories  in  the  Gospels  ;  it  must  be  taken 
and  understood  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  whole  picture  of 
Simon  Peter,  both  canonical  and  extra-canonical,  especially 
in  relation  to  Simon  Magus,  of  whom  he  appears  to  be  an 
orthodox  transfiguration.  This  difficult  matter  requires 
special  treatment  not  possible  in  this  connection.  But  to 
accept  the  episode  as  simple  history,  without  suspecting  any 
deeper  meaning,  and  to  find  therein  a  proof  invincible  of 
historicity,  is  to  push  naivete  to  the  wall. 

Only  one  other  of  these  new  nurselings  need  we  mention, 
which  Windisch  also  recognises  as  most  "  important  of  all " 
— the  reproach  of  being  "gluttonous  and  a  winebibber " 
(Matthew  xi,  19)  ;  the  other  passages  (Mark  iii,  22  ;  ii,  7) 
surely  call  for  no  notice.  It  has  long  seemed  to  the  present 
writer  that  the  Matthean  verse  (cf.  Luke  vii,  34)  is  by  far  the 
most  plausible  that  the  historicists  can  produce  ;  for  surely 
gluttony  and  winebibbing  are  not  divine,  but  human — all  too 
human.     Observe,  however,  that  the  passage  is  not  in  Mark, 

^  See  my  article  in  the  Open  Court  of  July,  1912. 


340  POSTSCRIPT 

and  that  it  is  transparently  merely  ascribed  to  Jesus.  More- 
over— and  here  is  the  core  of  the  matter — it  is  a  late  reflec- 
tion of  the  Christian  community,  how  late  none  can  say.  At 
this  point  we  are  glad  to  be  able  to  prop  ourselves  on  the 
penetrating  study  of  Dibelius  {Die  urchristliche  Ueherlieferung 
uber  Johannes  den  Tdufer,  191 1)?  who  recognises  these  verses 
(xi,  18,  19)  as  "the  interpretation  by  the  congregation  of  a 
parable  of  Jesus."  Enough  that  they  are  not  historical,  nor 
primitive,  nor  refer  to  anything  historical  in  the  naive  sense. 
The  concluding  statement,  that  "  Wisdom  was  justified  of  her 
works  (her  children  all),"  indicates  that  we  are  here  in  a 
difficult  region  of  Gnostic  thought,  and  far  away  from  the 
pleasant  paths  of  history. 

At  length  we  come  to  the  latest  publication  of  the 
honoured  Professor  Rudolf  Steck,  on  '*  The  Genuine  Witness 
of  Josephus  to  Christ"  {Prot.  Monatsh.^  191 2,  i-ii).  Written 
in  the  author's  clear,  scholarly,  excellent  style,  it  is  mainly 
devoted  to  stating  and  re-arguing  the  criticism  of  Credner  on 
the  passage  in  the  Antiquities  (xx,  9,  i)  concerning  "James, 
the  brother  of  Jesus,  the  so-called  Christ."  It  is  not  necessary 
to  rekindle  the  discussion.  Since  even  Zahn  now  recognises 
the  passage  as  interpolated  (Forschungen  z,  G.  d.  nt.  K.^  vi, 
305),  the  matter  may  be  allowed  to  rest.  But  Steck,  while 
unwilling  to  admit  the  interpolation,  perceives  that  such  a 
single  mention  of  Jesus  without  any  explanation  is  intolerably 
lonesome  and  highly  improbable  (p.  8).  Hence  he  very  justly 
finds  himself  constrained  to  consult  once  more  the  far  more 
famous  interpolation  {Ant.,  xviii,  3,  3),  and,  if  possible, 
extract  from  it  some  information.  All  other  hypotheses 
failing,  he  falls  back  on  that  of  the  Dutch  critic  Mensinga 
{Theol,  Tijdschrift,  1883,  145-152),  who,  rightly  feeling  how 
hard  it  is  to  believe  that  Josephus  could  have  kept  silence 
concerning  the  man  Jesus,  found  himself  conducted  to  the 
hypothesis  that  Josephus  had  said  something — namely,  not 
only  that  the  Christians  believe  in  the  divine  nature  and 
origin  of  Jesus,  but  that  the  idea  originated  in  a  certain 
material  incident  not  very  creditable  to  the  new  faith  (hence 
expunged  by  Christians  and  supplanted  by  the  extant 
section  3  !).  Then  would  follow  the  Paulina  incident  in 
Rome  as  a  parallel.     It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  discuss 


POSTSCRIPT  341 

this  notion  of  the  Hollander.  Steck  himself  states  it  as  a 
bare  hypothesis,  upon  which  he  shrinks  from  laying  stress. 
In  fact,  it  wrecks  on  one  patent  fact — that  the  slaughter  of 
the  Jews  (described  in  §  2)  is  followed  in  §  4  by  the  statement 
that  "■  at  the  same  time  a  second  te  rrible  thing  confounded  the 
Jews."  Now,  this  second  (erepov)  is  intelligible  only  if  §  4 
follows  upon  §  2,  for  'ivEpog  (as  Steck  correctly  observes)  is 
''the  other  of  two."  But  Steck  avers  that  ^eivov  (terrible) 
cannot  refer  to  the  slaughter  in  §  2,  but  must  refer  ''  properly 
to  something  mighty,  strange,  extraordinary  " — as  he  with 
Mensinga  thinks,  to  some  scandal  about  Joseph  and  Mary  ! 
This  is  a  mere  question  of  fact,  and,  with  all  due  deference  to 
the  Bernese  Professor,  we  must  insist  that  the  primary  and 
regular  meaning  of  §£tvoc  is  dire^  dread^  frightful^  terrible^ 
being  from  Seoc,  alarm^  affright ,  pale  fear,  terror.  Says 
Homer  of  the  archer-god:  "Terrible  arose  the  clangour  of 
his  silver  bow."^  Such  must  be  the  meaning  here,  for  only 
something  terrible  (and  not  a  piece  of  scandalous  gossip 
about  two  peasants)  would  have  "  con  founded  {Idopv^u)  the 
Jews."  The  hypothesis  of  Mensinga  has  really  appealed  to 
no  one,  and  is  simply  a  last  resort  of  Steck's  to  save  the 
passage  about  the  "brother,"  which  he  sees  must  be  saved  if 
the  historicity  is  to  be  plausibly  defended.  The  article  of  this 
distinguished  critic  is  valuable  as  setting  forth  in  clear  relief 
the  exigencies  of  the  liberal  situation. 

Let  us,  then,  sum  up  the  matter.  In  spite  of  the  frequent 
references  to  "  his  brethren  "  in  the  Gospels  (and  Acts  i,  14), 
no  serious  argument  for  the  historicity  is  based  thereon,  save 
the  Schmiedelian  pillar-proof  already  sufficiently  treated. 
There  remain  only  the  two  Pauline  passages.  In  the  first 
of  these  (i  Cor.  ix,  5)  the  phraseology,  "The  other  Apostles 
and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  and  Kephas,"  combined  with 
the  party-cries  given  in  i  Cor.  i,  12,  "I  am  of  Paul,  I  of 
Apollos,  I  of  Kephas,  I  of  Christ,"  very  strongly  suggests, 
wholly  apart  from  all  questions  of  "historicity,"  that  we  here 
have  to  deal  with  a  class  of  the  new  religionists,  that  "  the 
brethren  of  the  Lord  "  are  either  identical  or  in  line  with 
those  who  said,  "  I  am  of  Christ."     While   it   may  not   be 

^  "And  there  was  heard  a  dread  clang-ing  of  the  silver  bow." — Walter  Leaf. 


342  POSTSCRIPT 

possible  to  demonstrate  this  strictly,  it  seems  a  thoroughly 
satisfactory  view  of  the  matter,  in  every  way  probable,  and 
impossible  to  disprove.  In  the  second  passage  (Gal.  i,  19) 
the  phrase  is,  **  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord."  Now,  if 
what  has  just  been  said  be  correct,  there  is  nothing  here  to 
give  us  any  pause.  James  was  simply  one  of  a  circle, 
perhaps  very  select  and  interior,  who  for  their  fervour  and 
strict  devotion  were  known  as  "brethren  of  the  Lord,"  or 
perhaps  "of  Christ."  Herewith  everything  seems  adequately 
explained  in  entire  accord  with  the  Gospel  use  of  the  phrase 
"my  brethren."  Moreover,  we  must  note  that  the  words, 
"  brother  of  the  Lord,"  sound  very  strange  as  designating 
at  that  early  day  a  flesh-and-blood  brother  of  a  man  Jesus. 
"  The  Lord  "  was  the  very  highest  name  for  the  enthroned 
world-ruling  Saviour-God ;  it  denoted  specifically  the  Jehovah 
of  the  Old  Testament.  It  seems  extremely  unlikely  that  in 
any  case  such  a  kinsman  should  be  called  "  brother  of  the 
Lord."  Surely  it  would  have  been  just  as  easy  and  far  more 
natural  to  call  him  "brother  of  Jesus."  The  fact  that  he  is 
never  thus  called  seems  to  point  directly  to  the  spiritual  and 
directly  away  from  the  carnal  sense  of  brotherhood.  Strongly 
confirmatory  is  the  further  fact  that  in  the  much  later  inter- 
polation in  Josephus  we  no  longer  read  the  "  brother  of  the 
Lord,"  but  "the  brother  of  Jesus,  him  called  the  Christ." 
This  interpolator  of  "  the  falsified  Josephus  "  (Zahn) 
undoubtedly  meant  fleshly  brotherhood,  and  accordingly  he 
says,  as  he  should  say,  "brother  of  Jesus";  so,  too,  would 
the  Apostle  have  written  had  he  meant  the  same  thing. 

It  seems,  then,  that  the  New  Testament  contains  no  clear 
token  of  any  such  carnal  kinship,  and  yet,  if  any  such  really 
existed,  it  seems  strange  that  no  trace  of  it  should  be  detected ; 
strange  that  neither  father,  nor  mother,  nor  brother,  nor 
sister,  nor  any  other  kinsman  of  such  a  man  Jesus  should 
ever  be  heard  of  in  authentic  or  probable  historical  connection. 
Wonderfully  apt  are  the  words  of  Hebrews  (vii,  3) :  "  Without 
father,  without  mother,  without  genealogy,  having  neither 
beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life."  Such  is  the  Jesus  of 
primitive  Christianity. 

It  has  hardly  seemed  worth  while  to  notice  the  vigorous 
contention  of  Berendts  Die  Zeugnisse  vom  Christentum  im 


POSTSCRIPT  343 

slavischen  "De  Bello  Judaico"  des  Josephus,  1906;  also 
Analecta  zurti  slav.  Josephus,  in  Preuschen's  Zeitschrift^ 
1908  ;  pp.  47-70),  that  Josephus  inserted  in  the  first  edition 
of  his  *'  Jewish  War  "  an  elaborate  notice  of  "  Christ  and  the 
Christians,"  which  he  afterwards  expunged  as  "■  the  course  of 
the  spiritual  development  of  his  people  led  away  from 
Christianity  "  (p.  75),  since  even  the  most  sympathetic  critics 
(as  Schiirer,  Theol.  Liter aturzeitung^  1906,  262^.;  and  Case, 
p.  260)  clearly  perceive  and  declare  that  his  zeal  and  erudition 
have  miscarried. 

What  then,  finally,  is  the  witness  of  Josephus?  The 
famous  §  3  is  certainly  a  Christian  interpolation.  All  efforts, 
even  the  most  ingenious,  to  find  therein  any  traces  of  an 
original  (now  Christianised)  testimony  have  conspicuously 
failed;  and  they  will  continue  to  fail,  for  the  opening  words 
of  §  4,  a  '*  second  terrible  thing,"  point  clearly  and 
unambiguously  back  to  the  first  "terrible  thing,"  the 
slaughter  described  in  §  2.  Hereby  these  sections  are  shut 
down  upon  each  other,  and  any  intervening  third  section  is 
excluded. 

But  when  this  section  is  surrendered,  so  is  the  other 
phrase  in  question,  "  brother  of  Jesus,"  etc.,  for  other  reasons 
and  because  Josephus  would  hardly  have  introduced  such  an 
isolated  notice.  So,  then,  it  appears  that  this  Jewish  historian 
of  that  time  and  country  makes  no  mention  of  Jesus — a  fact 
inexplicable  even  to  Historiker  themselves  on  their  own  hypo- 
thesis. Hence  their  strenuous  defence  of  the  indefensible. 
We  thank  Professor  Steck  for  his  able  and  honest  article. 
It  seems  that  each  renewed  investigation  confirms  more  and 
more  securely  the  conception  herein  set  forth  of  the  Origins 
of  Christianity. 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


OLD  TESTAMENT 


Genesis  : 

Psalms  : 

xxxv,  15       ... 

278 

i.  1.2    157 

159 

xxii,  I 

...     201 

xlviii,  24,  41 

304 

^^'.4      

xhx,  15        

152 
293 

xxii,  17 
xxiv,  3,  4      ... 

...     142 
...     128 

Ezehiel: 

xxxvii,  2 

...     128 

iii,  I      

... 

124 

Leviticus  : 

xli,  9     

...     317 

ix,  2,3,  II    ... 

... 

112 

xvii,  II,  14 

152 

xli,  10 

...     316 

X,  2,6,7       ... 

... 

112 

li,  16-19 

...     280 

xiv,  6    

... 

278 

Deuteronomy  : 

xcvi,  5 

•.•       54 

xxiii     

306 

107 

vi,  4      

277 

cix,  28 

...     128 

XXX,  12 

309 

xii,  23 

152 

cxxvi,  5,  6    ... 

...     128 

xxxiii,  II,  25 

... 

278 

xxix,  16-18 

288 

cxxxix,  19-24 

...     280 

Daniel : 

cxiv,  II,  13  ... 

...     270 

i,  1,20 

... 

270 

Joshua  : 

ii,  I       

270 

XV,  25 

304 

Proverbs  : 

ii,  18     

... 

269 

Judges  : 

viii,  I 

viii,  I2_^     ... 

...     166 

...158/ 

".44     

IV,  3      

... 

270 
270 

vi,  II     295, 

n.  2 

Isaiah  : 

iv,  23    

vii,  13,  14,  18, 

25,27 

22, 

269 

2  Samuel: 

h 

...     280 

270 

ix,  4      

280 

1,4,5,17,21,29...     281 

viii,  X,  xi      ... 

270 

xvii,  27 

280 

ii,  9,  18,  20,  22 

...     281 

x,5       

... 

270 

V,  1-7    

122  n. 

xii,  6,7 

... 

112 

I  Kings  : 

V,  24     

...     281 

xvii,  8-24     

293 

X,  10,  II 

...     281 

Hosea  : 

xxii,  II        

"5 

xix,4...i04,3o6,3o8,3i7 

i,  II       

... 

294 

xix,  41 

...     309 

viii,  I    

... 

102 

2  Kings  : 

xxxi,  6 

...     278 

ix,  3-6,  15    ... 

... 

102 

xvii,  12,  13 

278 

XXXV,  5/.     ... 

...     203 

xi,  I      

195 

,  313 

xvii,  24-33 

68 

xliv,  6 

xiv,  1-4 

... 

278 

xvii,  24-41 

102 

xliv,  22 

Hi,  13-liii,  12 

...     278 
...       65 

Joel: 

2  Chronicles: 

lv,i      

...     128 

ii,  12,  13 

... 

278 

H,i6     

30 

Ivii,  17 

99.  312 

ii,  32     

... 

221 

XXX,  6 

278 

Ixi,  I     

...     203  . 

xxxvi,  23      

269 

Ixi,  2     

...     128 

A  mos  : 

Ixiii,  2 

...     29s 

ii,  2       

... 

304 

Ezra  : 

ii,  16     

... 

III 

i.  2         

269 

Jeremiah  : 

v,  21-24,  26,  27 

... 

279 

iv,  5      

305 

iii 

iii,  12,  14,  22 

...     107 

...     278 

vi,  13    

... 

279 

Nehemiah  : 

xviii,  II,  15... 

...     278 

Jonah  : 

i>4>5     

269 

XXV,  5,  6 

...     278 

i.9        

... 

269 

",4.20 

269 

xxxi,  24 

...     128 

i>i7      

... 

30 

345 


346 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


Micah  : 

Zechariah : 

i,6/:    

...  281 

i,3.4  

...  278 

iii,  5   

...   281 

ix,  12  

...  278 

iv,5   

...   281 

xi,  12  

...  306 

Vj  13/ 

...   281 

VI,  16  

...  281 

Malachi  : 
Iii,  7      

I  Maccabees  : 
V,  19     


..     278 
..     125 


NEW  TESTAMENT 


Matthew 
16      ... 


1,21 
ii,  23. 
2 


.292, 


111. 


III,  3 
iii,  7,  12 
iii,  8,  II 
iii,  9      ... 

jv,  15/ 

IV,  17  ... 
iv,  18  ... 
iv,  19    ... 

v,9,45- 
v,  25  ... 
v,  28     ... 

v,45  .- 
vi,  7 

vi,  10  ... 
vii,  2  ... 
vii,  12  ... 
vii,  13,  14 
vii,  16-21 
vii,  19  ... 
vii,  22  ... 
vii,  24-27 
vii,  29  ... 
viii,  II,  12 
viii,  12  ... 
viii,  31... 
ix,9  ... 
ix,30  ... 
ix,34    ... 

IX,  36  ... 
x 

X,  I 

X,2  ... 

x,4 

x,7  ... 
X,  14,  15 

X,  21        ... 

X,  26,  27 

X,  27      ... 

X,  34»  35 
X,  42     ... 
xi,  5      ... 


.-   235,294 



17 

299, 300 

,314 

...129,2 

76/ 

136 



129 



286 



73 



332 

...   129 

,276 

-  235 

,294 



29 



338 



125 



126 



127 



144 



268 



130 



127 



130 



127 



129 



214 



128 



179 



102 



326 



211 



294 



97 



23 

...38,51 

>i79 

60 



57 

...  235 

,294 



304 



268 



144 



130 



43 



255 



144 



118 



180 

,5  ... 
.5,6... 

,7-15 
,  12    ... 

,17    ... 
,18/. 
,19    ... 
,  20-24 
,  20-24 

,  25-30 
,  27-29 
i,  15  ... 
i,  24,  27 
h  27,  32 

i,28  ... 

1,30  ... 

i,3i   ... 

1,32  ... 

i.  39  ••. 
, 46-50 
i,  II  ... 

ii,  41  ... 

ii,43... 

11,47... 

ii,  52... 

ii,  55  ... 

ii,58... 

V,  17-21 
XV,  22-28 
XV,  32-38 
xvi,  4    ... 
xvi,  5-12 
xvi,  5-12 
xvi,  28  ... 
xvi,  28  ... 
xvii,  18... 
xviii,  1-6 
xviii,  6  f. 
xviii,  10 
xviii,  14 
xviii,  15 
xviii,  17 
xviii,  21  yi 
xviii,  27 
xix,  13-15 
xix,  16  7^. 


...  337 
...202/. 
...  114 
...  43 
...  130 
...  340 
...338/ 
...  144 

•••     337 
xviii,  118 

...  165 

38,  322 

...  213 

I92# 

...   268 

...  125 
...  180 

...  337 
...  202 
...  236 

...  34 
...  272 
...  268 

29,  275 
...  36 
...  235 
...  201 
...  123 

...  338 

...  123 

...  202 

...  204 

...  337 
...  268 

...  337 

...  211 
...  118 
118,284 
113, 118 
...  118 
...  284 
...  144 
...   284 

...  97 
...  117 
...    322 


xix,  16-26    . 
xix,  17  ... 
xix,  24  ...     . 
XX,  19  ...     . 
XX,  23  ...     . 
xxi,  3    ...     . 
xxi,  5,  7 
xxi,  II  ...     . 
xxi,  17-22    . 
xxi,  25  ...     . 
xxi,  31,  43 
xxiii      ...     . 
xxiii,  II,  12  . 
xxiii,  33 
xxiii,  34 
xxiv,  7...     . 
xxiv,  30,  34 . 
xxiv,  36 
XXV,  40...     . 
xxvi,  3  ...     . 
xxvi,  6-13    . 
xxvi,  14 
xxvi,  26-29. 
xxvi,  29 
xxvi,  36 
xxvi,  37 
xxvi,  69 
xxvli,  3-10  , 
xxvii,  9,  10  , 
xxvii,  16 
xxvii,  17,22. 
xxvii,  33 
xxvii,  46 
xxviii,  6 
xxviii,  10 
xxviii,  19 

Mark  : 
i,  I 

i,  1-3  ... 

1,4  ...     , 

i,9 

i,  13  ... 

i,  IS  ... 
i,  17  ... 
i,  22 


...  313 
126,  195 

267/ 
...  312 
•••  337 
...  136 
...  15s 
...  315 
...  114 
...     269 

267/ 
...     144 


235, 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


347 


1,24    ... 

61 

X,  18,  40 

337/ 

viii,  28 

...  196 

1, 27    ... 

227 

X,  22   ... 

312 

ix,  10  

...  293 

1,41     .- 

96 

X,23#... 

272 

ix, 12-17 

...  123 

i,43   ... 

97 

X,  33  ... 

312 

ix,49/ 

125,214 

11,7   ... 

338/ 

X,  43-45 

338 

ix,  54#   ... 

...  338 

ii,  19,  20,  22 121  1 

x,47  ... 

291 

X,  I    

...  136 

11,27  - 

125 

xi,  3   ... 

136 

X,  II   

...  268 

111,  14,  15 

57 

XI,  12-14 

114 

x,  12-18 

...  337 

iii,  19  ... 

303 

xi,  20/ 

"4 

X,  13  

...  283 

Hi,  21  ... 

...  180, 190 

xii,  28-34 

281 

X,  17-20    ... 

...   57 

iii,  21  ... 

337 

xii,  29-30 

75 

x,33   

...   97 

iii,  22  ... 

213 

xii,  35-37 

338 

X,  38-40   ... 

...  106 

iii,  22  ... 

...336,338/ 

xii,  36  ... 

193 

X,  38-42   ... 

104,  136 

iii,  28  ... 

194 

xiii,  8  ... 

318 

XI,  15  

...  213 

iii,  29  ... 

193 

xiii,  II  ... 

193 

xi,  19  

192,  213 

iii,  31-33 

193 

xiii,  12/ 

...  ...  130 

xi,  20  

...  268 

i"»  31-35 

122 

xiii,  32  ... 

...  180,  197 

xi,  23  

...  125 

iv,  II  ... 

...  ^33,272 

xiii,  32  ... 

337 

xi,  29  

...  202 

iv,  II,  12, 

34,  36/,  40,  60 

xiv,  2-9 

106 

xi,  32  

...  283 

iv,  21  /. 

34  #• 

xiv,  5  ... 

97 

xi,39  

...  136 

iv,  21-23 

43 

xiv,  10  ... 

303 

XI,  49  

...  166 

iv,  24-34 

...    35/ 

xiv,  22-25 

146 

xii,  I   

...  204 

iv,  26-32 

272 

xiv,  32  ... 

294 

xii,  3  

.••  255 

iv,  28  ... 

75 

xiv,  33  ... 

337 

xii,  10 

...193/ 

iv,33/.... 

33/,  37,  40, 

xiv,  43  ... 

303 

xii,  42 

...  136 

60,  130 

XIV,  51/ 

111,183,199 

xii,  58 

...  125 

iv,  36  ... 

34 

XV,  7   ... 

294 

xiii,  3,  5 

...  284 

V,  1-13 

59 

XV,  34  ... 

...  180,  197 

xiii,  6,  7 

...  115 

v,  1-20... 

117 

XV,  34  ... 

337 

xiii,  15 

...  136 

v,39  ... 

338 

xvi,  5  ... 

112 

xiii,  32 

...  211 

VI,  5   ... 

337 

xvi,9,  12,  14   ...  154 

XV,  7  

...  286 

vi,5/...i 

40,180,201/, 

xvi,  15  ... 

70 

XV,  7,  10   ... 

...  284 

213 

XV,  20  

...   97 

vi,34  ... 

...38,96,123 

Lule: 

xvi,  1-9 

...  144 

vi,  34-44 

123 

i,77   ... 

87 

xvi,  19-31  ...28,  72,  102 

vii,  28  ... 

102 

11,  II,  26 

136 

xvi,  20 

...  103 

viii,  1-9 

123 

ii,  52  ... 

208 

xvi,  23-25  ... 

...  103 

viii,  2  ... 

96 

iii,  3   ... 

286 

xvi,  30 

...  284 

viii,  12  ... 

...  180,  202 

iii,  8   ... 

...   73,286 

xvii,  I,  2,  3,  4 

...  284 

viii,  12  ... 

337 

iv,43  ... 

275 

xvii,  2  ...  ... 

...  118 

viii,  14-21 

...  180, 204 

v,  4-10... 

29 

xvii,  5,  6 

...  136 

viii,  33  ... 

338 

V,  26  ... 

233 

xvii,  11-19  ... 

...  103 

ix,  22  ... 

96 

V,  27   ... 

294 

xvii,  20/  ... 

...  272 

ix,  23  ... 

140 

V,  32   ... 

286 

xviii,  1-6 

...  144 

ix,  38  ... 

211 

vi,  16  ... 

304,  306/ 

xviii,  6 

...  136 

ix,  38-40 

214 

vi,  43-49 

127/ 

xviii,  15-17... 

...  117 

ix,  40  ... 

125 

vii,  II  ... 

293 

xviii,  18 

...  322 

ix,  42  ... 

118 

vii,  13,  19 

...  .   136 

xviii,  19 

126, 195 

ix,  47  ... 

272 

vii,  22  ... 

...  180,  202 

xviii,  32 

...  312 

X,  I 

98 

vii,  23  ... 

203 

xix,  4  

...  285 

x,  13-16 

117 

vii,  24-28 

"4 

xix,  8  

...  136 

x,i5/.... 

272 

vii,  32  ... 

130 

xix,  31,  34  ... 

...  136 

x,  17/ ... 

180,  194,  322 

vii,  34  ... 

339 

xix,  40 

...   73 

X, 17-31 

72 

vii,  36-50 

106 

xxi,  10 

...  318 

X,  18   ... 

126 

viii,  10  ... 

34 

xxii,  I 

235,  294 

X,  17,  21, 

22 98/ 

viii,  13  ... 

233 

xxii,  3 

...  304 

348 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


xxn,  17-20  ... 

xxii,  44 

xxii,  47 

xxii,  55/     ... 

xxii,  61 

xxiii,  34 

xxiv,  3 

xxiv,  19 
xxiv,  34 
xxiv,  47 

John  : 
i.6        

j>4S      

IV,  18    

iv,  25    

V,  2       

V,  2-9    

vi>S-7i 

vi,  71    

vii,  20 

vn,53 

viii,  12 

viii,  32/. 
viii,  39^     ... 
viii,  48/. 

viii,  52 

ix, II    

ix, 31    

X,  20/. 

xi,  16    

xi,33.38      ... 

XI,  46,  53      -. 

XI,  54    

xii,  2     

xii,  4     

xii,  31 

xiii,  I    

xiii,  2    

xiii,  26 

xiii,  30 

xiv,  12 

xiv,  22 

xiv,  30 

xvi,  II 

xviii,  16,  18,  25 
xviii,  36 

xix,  13 

xix,  17 

xix,  38 

XX,  17 

XX,  24 

xxi   

xxi,  2  

xxi,  1-14  ...  30, 
xxi,  25 


...  146 

...  296 

...  294 

...  187 

...  136 
xiv,  144 

...  136 

...  291 

...  136 

...  286 


-  233 

-  315 
...  102 

235>  294 

...  294 
296/ 

...  123 

...  304 

...  211 

...  108 

...  108 

-  73 
•••  73 
...  211 
...  211 
...  294 

75.  279 

...  211 

235.  294 

...  97 

...  102 

...  293 

...  106 

...  304 

...  2QO 

-  233 


... 

304 

... 

304 

... 

316 

... 

222 

... 

304 

... 

2CX) 

... 

200 

... 

187 

... 

275 

294 

297 

294 

298 

... 

45 

... 

237 

235 

294 

29 

172 

235 

294 

154. 275 1 

... 

233  1 

Acts: 


...  172 

...  341 

...  318 

...  136 

...  172 

...  283 
235>  294 


1,14      ... 
!« 15-25 

i,  21 

ii 

11,38     ... 
iii,  2 

iii,  19    ... 
iii,  21    ... 

iv,33  .- 

V,  14  ... 

V,  16  ... 

V,  31  ... 
vi,9 

vii,  51-53 
viii,  4  ... 
viii,  5-13 
viii,  7  ... 
viii,  9-1 1 
viii,  13... 
viii,  16... 
viii,  22  ... 
viii,  27-40 
viii,  40... 
ix,  I 

ix,3-7- 

X,  I 

X,  38 
xi,  18 
xi,  26 

xiii,  14 

xiii,  24 

xiv,  15 

xvi,  16 

xvi,  17 

xvii,  II         

xvii,  29,  30 

xviii,  2 

xviii,  II,  18 

xviii,  24,  25 

xix,  4    

xix,  12 

xix,  12,13, 15,16... 

XX,  21 281,286 

xxi,  20 255,259 

xxii,  6-9       155 

xxvi,  12-15 155 

xxvi,  20       ...     283,287 

xxvi,  28        254 

xxviii,  17-25       ...     254 


,..58,88,212, 


283 
...  183 
...  136 
...  136 
...211/ 
...  287 
...  294 
...  283 
...  85 
II 
...211/ 
...  159 
...  103 
...  136 
...  283 
...  65 
...  86 
...  136 
...  155 
305 
315 
286 

254 

86 

287 

71 
211 
196 

233 
283 

251 
149 

125 

287 

1/ 
211 


Romans  : 
i,  18-32  . 
11,4  ...  . 
VI,  4,  6  ...     . 


278,  288 
...  287 
...     132 


vii,  24 

viii,  19-21    ...     . 

ix-xi     ] 

xiv,  17 

XV,  3,  4 1 

XV,  19 

/  Corinthians . 
i,  12      ...     ...     . 

i,  24,  30        ...     . 

ii,  6/. 

ii,  9       

iv,  20 

viii,  5 

ix,5      ...     ...     . 

IX,  5      

x,  14-22       ...     . 

X,  16/. I 

X,  20      

X,  20/ 

xi,  23 

xi,  23^  ...  I 
xi,  23-26  ...  . 
xii,  2,  3         ...     . 

xii,  3     

xii,  8-1 1       ...     . 

xii,  27 , 

xii,  28 

XV 

XV,  I-II  

XV,  8     I 

XV,  24-28      

XV,  28 

2  Corinthians: 

iii,  6      

iv,  3      

iv,  10 

V,  1-4 

v,.3       

vii,  9,  10       

viii,  9 

xii,  12 

xii,  21 


..     131 

..       70 

[01,325 
••     275 

[54>  199 
..     214 


••  341 
..  166 
..  41 
42,  130 
••  275 
..  294 
..236/ 

••  341 
..     151 

50,  152 
,.  192 
..     211 


33= 


33. 


150 
146 

152 
217 
192 
214 

152 
214 
200 
153 
159 
338 
130 


196 
300 
132 
200 

"3 
287 
199 
214 

283 


Galatians  : 

f5-i7 

^6/ 


1 
i 

i,  19 
ii,  20 
iii,  I 
iv,  8/ 
IV,  24 
vi,  17 


134 

155 

21,  237,  342 

132 

132 

71 

145 

,.     ...  132 


INDEX  OF  PASSAGES 


349 


Ephesians  : 

11,25     ••• 

1.23       

152 

iv,  6-8  ... 

ii,  2        

200 

iv,  16/.... 

ii,  II      

294 

iv,  19,  21 

ili,  i8    

131 

1^,4       

152 

Titus  : 

iv,  12     

152 

ii,  13     ... 

iv,  17     

71 

V,  23      

152 

Hebrews 

V.30      

152 

ii,  18     ... 
iv,  14... 

Philippians 

.• 

iv,  15     ... 

11,5-11 

... 

198 

v,7       ... 

VI,  I 

CoJossians  : 

vi,6      ... 

!jI9       

152 

vi,  17/ 

Ii,  2       

52 

vii,  I 

11,8-15 

... 

88 

vii,  3      ... 

11.14/- 

... 

200 

vii,  3     ... 

ii,  17,  19       ... 

152 

ix,3       ... 

iv,  II     

... 

294 

xii,  17   ... 

2  Thessalon 

ians  : 

James  : 

".4       

... 

295 

I,  17      ... 
1,21 

I  Timothy  : 

iii,  6 

iii,  16  ...  22,5 

5,  65 

133 

vi,  12,  13 

255 

I  Peter  : 

vi,  20    

42 

255 

ii,  2 

ii,  25     ... 

2  Timothy: 

iv,  16     ... 

,12,14 

42/ 

255 

V,  13      ... 

87 

2  Peter: 

39 

ii,  I 

39 

iii,  4,8... 

40 

iii,  9      ... 

iii,  10    ... 

52 

I  John  : 

ii,  18      ... 

...  167 

...   86 
...  167 

••.335/ 

r..   287 

...   142 

•••  339 

...  196 

93,  183 

...  342 

235, 294 
...  287 


10 

233 
10 


[8, 186 
.  227 
•  254 
.  240 


2  John 


Jude  : 


25  

Revelation  : 
i,  8 

ii,  5   ... 
iii,  4 

v,6   ... 
ix,  20/. 
X,  10 

xiii,  8  ... 
xiv,  6f.... 
xvi,  9,  II 
xvi,  13  ... 
xviii,  2  ... 
xix,  14  ... 
xxi,  6  ... 
xxii,  13... 


75. 


233 
189 
287 
183 


233 

187 


[37 
52 


•  17 

281/. 
281/ 

•  91 
.  282 
.  124 
.  91 

145,  156 
282 
211 
211 
112 
17 
17 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


Abbott,  ioo 
Acidalius,  249 
^lianus,  126 
^lius  Adrian,  223,  242 
^schylus,  13,  72,  99 
Agrippa,  263  /. 
Ambrosius,  168 
Anaxagoras,  131 
Antiochus,  127,  162 
Antoninus,  131, 163,  241 
Apollonius,  47 
Aristides,  48  /.,  50,  72 
Aristotle,    xiv,    13,    70, 

111,127,157,337 
Arnold,  81,  247 
Asklepios,  72 
Athenagoras,  46 
Augustine,  29,  30,  118 
Augustus,  241 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  hi,  212, 

333 
Bacon,  Francis,  229 
Badham,  271 
Barzellotti,  127/ 
Basilides,  12, 86,  88,  206 
Bauer,  B.,  20,  316/. 
Baumann,  190 
Bechtel,  29 
Bekker,  233 
Bentley,  320 
Berendts,  342 
Binet-Sangle,  xvlii,  81, 

190 
Bishop,  114 
Blass,  155,  254 
Bolland,  210 
Botten,  194 
Bousset,    xix,    81,    87, 

292,321,329 
Bracciolini,  239 
Brandt,  141 
Brewer,  305 
Bruno, 12 
Brutus,  M.,  163 
Budde,  312 


Buhl,  279,  284,  321 
Burkitt,   xiii,   146,  272, 
^274,285,315,338 
Butler,  142 
Byron,  314 

Calvin,  12,  59 
Canney,  298 
Carneades,  70,  162 
Case,  33o#,  327,  343 
Cato,  163 
Celsus,  168 
Chamberlain,  81 
Cheyne,  285,  293,  304, 

306,  317,  318,  321 
Chrysippus,  162 
Chrysostom,  336 
Chvvolson,  229-231 
Cicero,  163,  337 
Clemens   Alex.,    51  y., 

72,  222,  227,  233 
Clemens     Rom.,     240, 

264 
Cohen, 116 
Colton,  128 
Conybeare,  32,  70 
Cramer,  316 
Cumont,  69,  132 
Cyrus,  130 

Dalman,  304 
Dante,  303 
Davis,  329 
Deissmann,  336 
Delitzsch,  68,  92 
Democritus,  70 
De  Quincey,  309 
Didache,  150 
Diederichs,  327 
Dindorf,  307 
Dio  Cassius,  248,  251 /". 
Diogenes  Laertius,  196 
Dittrnar,  313,  318 
Domitian,  242 
Drews,  119,  229 

350 


Eddy,  Mrs.,  59,  183 
Egli,  30 
Eisler,  30,  130 
Eleazar,  224 
Empedocles,  42,  130 
Epicharmus,  156 
Epicurus,  70 
Epictetus,  131 
Epiphanius,  45,  159 
Eucken,  79 
Euripides,  13 
Eusebius,  70,  223,  241, 

243 
Ewald,  20 

Ferrero,  2^'jff. 
Fox,  59 

Fundanus,  242 
Furneaux,  240 

Gautama,  81 
Geffcken,  49,  263 
Gen^brand, 194 
Gibbon,  259 
Gladstone,  142 
Godet,  297 
Grotius,  194 

Hal^vy,  321 
Harnack,  xiii-x  vi ,  xviii- 

xxi,  9,  11-13,  48,  64, 

81,  86,  92,   131,  143, 

206,  332 
Harris,  xxi,  50 
Harvey,  221 
Haupt,  13,  107,  123,  320 
Hegel,  119 
Hegesippus,  236 
Heinrici,  133/,  3" 
Heitmueller,    150,   157, 

217 
Hengstenberg,  30,  108 
Hennecke,  262 
Heraclitus,  n8 
Hermann,  328 
Herodotus,  130,  338 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


351 


Hertlein,  271 
Hilbert,  333 
Hilg-enfeld,  86,  236,  327 
Hippolytus,  86,88,  118, 

159.  199 
Hirsch,  225 
HitzifT,  323 
Holsten,  20,  133,  148 
Holtzmann,   43  /.,   57, 

111,190,194,304 
Homer,  162,  338,  341 
Horace,  162 
Hort,  xiv 
Hoyer,  17 
Huss,  12 
Huxley,  117 

Ignatius,  206 
Irenaeus,   26,    159,  206, 

221^,233,262 

Jensen,  8 

Jerome,  30/.,  115,  121, 
237.  243 

Jonson,  Ben,  306 

Josephus,  83,  223,  226, 
229/.,  234-238,  253, 
256,259,262,277,293, 
298,304,  340,  342/. 

Julicher,  xx,  37,  39,  40, 
61 

Justin,  51,  53,  56,  150, 

206, 214,  218  y.,  256, 
262, 265, 336 

Justus,  83 
Juvenal,  261 

Kalthoff,  8 
Kampmeier,   260,   262, 

291 
Kant,  76 

Kautzsch,  280,  312 
Keim,  30,  81,  iii,  177, 

212,    242,    285,    293, 

304.315.322/ 
Kiefl,  330 
Klein,  291 
Knox,  12,  59 
Kostlin,  335 
Kreyenbiihl,  123 

Lactantius,  38,  50,  243 
Lang,  248,  313 
Lazzaretti,  173 
Leaf,  341 
Leibniz,  112 


Leonardo,  14 

Levy,  285 

Liddell,  307 

Lietzmann,  17,  131 

Lightfoot,  242,  254 

Lincoln,  14,  329 

Linnaeus,  6 

Lipsius,  263 

Loisy,  xi,  xiii,  xvi,  xviii, 

xix,  78,  95,  106,  III, 

318,  326 
Loman,  316 
de  Loosten,  190 
Lucan,  75 
Lucian,  224/!,  252 
Lucretius,  70,  162 
Luther,  12,  14,  59,  253 

Macintosh,  328 
Mallock,  70 
Manetho,  224 
Mann,  78 

Marcion,  12,  194,  206 
Margoliouth,  xxii 
Margolis,  xxiii 
Martial,  261 
McGififert,  235 
Melanchthon,  12 
Melito,  241  /. 
Meltzer,  337,  339 
Mensinga,  340/". 
Merx,     102,    126,    274, 

306 
Metatron^  339 
Meyboom,  328 
Meyer,  133,  134,  194 
Milton,  8 

Minucius  Felix,  52 
Mohammed,  15 
Mommsen,  240,  242 
Moses,  224 
Mueller,  95,  187 
Muretus,  249 

Napoleon,  78 

Neander,  235 

Nero,  238,  251,   256  /, 

262  # 
Nestle,  E.,  293,  304 
Nestle,  W.,  126 
Neumann,    181,    208  /"., 

240 
Nicolardot,  95 
Nipperdey,  249 
Novalis,  67 
Numa,  219 


CEhler,  220 

Olsj^ausen,  iii 

Oppian,  30 

Origen,  x,  29,  37,  45, 
50,  54,  103,  166,  168, 
204,     217,    233,    237, 

243.  323.  329 
Overbeck,  242 
Ovid,  127 

Parker,  59 
Paulsen,  119,  184 
Paulus  (Sergius),  163 
Pausanias,  307 
Peano,  333 
Pepys,  261 
Per^s,  78 
Pericles,  127 
Persius,  244 
Pfleiderer,  194,  334/ 
Philo,  52,  83,  142 
Phocylides,  128 
Photius,  83 
Pindar,  125,  198,  208 
Plato,  13,  46,  48,  65,  70, 

75,  142,  161 
Pliny,  224,  248,  252  /. 
Plutarch,  42,  127 
Porphyry,  219 
Posidonius,  162 
Preuschen,  70,  86,  343 
Protagoras,  70 
Ptolemy,  6 
Pythagoras,  126 

Quadratus,  223 

Ramsay,  59,  242,  247 
Rassmussen,  172,  190 
Reinach,   S.,    iii,    142, 

252,  255  ^ 
Reitzenstein,  160,  271 
Renan,  xvi,  20,  81,  172, 

177.318 
Reuss,  108 
Reville,  177 
Robertson,  8,  181 
Robinson,  50 
Rochefoucauld,  128 
Rost,  315 
Russell,  6,  334 
Ryssel,  312 

SCH^FER,  190 

Schechter,  xxii,  xxiii 
Schiller,  242,  259 


352 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


Schlager,  331 
Schleiermacher,  67 
Schmidt,  194,  222,  263, 

272 
Schmidtke,  292 
Schmiedel,    xi-xill,     9, 
20,  25  /.,  31,  33,  41, 
81,  97,  no,  142,  177, 
208,  213, 221,  223, 226, 

292,  330.337.  339.  341 
Schurer,  233,  286,  343 
Schweitzer,  xviii,  124 
Schwen,    291    f.,    327, 

334 
Scott,  307 
Seneca,  245,  261 
Socrates,  xiv,  13,  15,72, 

162 
von  Soden,  9,  81,   160, 

229,  247 
Sophocles,  13,  72,  127 
Spinoza,  158 
Stock,  340,  341,  343 
Strabo,  323 
Strauss,  in,  316 
Suetonius,  248,  251, 253, 

256/ 
SulpiciusSeverus,26q/], 

265 


Tacitus,  224,  229,  238, 
251.253,  256/.,  259/: 

Tatian,  53,  113,  242 

Tertullian,  26,  150,  158, 
208,  219/.,  223,  233, 
262,  265,  242,  297,  336 

Thales,  46 

Theognis,  128 

Theophilus,  53 

Thoma,  123 

Thucydides,  41 

Tiberius,  252,  265 

Tischendorf,  268,  304 

Trajan,  252 

Troeltsch,  328 

USENER,  70 

Valentinus,  12,  206 
Vespasian,  224 
Volkmar,  ix,  x,  30,  32, 
81,177,304,309,316/ 

Washington,  14 
Weber,  271,  286 
Weinel,  262,  299,   301, 

333 
Weiss,  J.,  xvni,  95,  299, 
301 


Weizsacker,  44 

Wellhausen,  xiii/,  xvi, 
xix,  20,  34,  36,  37, 
39,  60,  104,  III,  166, 
193  /,  269,  273  /., 
277,  284,  295,  304, 
308,  318,  321,  323/: 

Wendland,  330,  332 

Wendling,  95 

Wernle,  78,. 292 

Westcott,  xiv 

Wetstein,  44,  269 

Whately,  78 

Winckler,  236,  292,315, 
321 

Windisch,  2,  334-339 

Wohlenberg,  in 

Wrede,  xviii,  20,  143, 
317 

Xenocrates,  159 
Xenophon, 307 

Zahn,  43,  44,  73,  III, 
114,131,155,263,304, 

.340.  342 
Zimmern,  112 
Zoroaster,  224 
Zwingli,  121,  253 


PBINTBD  BY  WATTS  AND   CO.,  JOQNSON'S   COUBT,  FLEET  STBEET,   E.G. 


r  Tr- 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


x^ 


11 


^^ 


m\ 


5    '63'-'^'^ 


VOA^^ 


^^o'^ 


\ 


A^ 


5S 


a 


Xm 


*^-  i^ 


INTER-LIBRARY 


LOAN 


JUL  28  1980 


LD  21A-60to-2,'67 
(H241slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


w 


YC  9%93 


'^  U/wV 


^  ■  ^ 


281440.  \(^6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAIvIFORNIA  lylBRARY 


I 


